Sitting of 9 December 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Road Traffic Reduction
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
9.33 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I am pleased to have secured this debate and to have the chance to question the Government closely on the aims of their transport policies. Everyone recognises the need to do something about congestion and traffic. The Government's recent White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", and their consultation paper, "Breaking the Logjam", are welcome, and make constructive suggestions about how to improve public transport, increase cycling and achieve a modal switch. However, "Breaking the Logjam" has introduced an element of confusion about whether the proceeds from road user charging will be entirely given over to transport projects. To underline that point, I shall quote the document, which says that the Secretary of State will be given powers
"to require a proportion of the revenue to be paid to central government."
That does not sound as though all proceeds will be spent on public transport schemes.
I hope that there will soon be an opportunity—perhaps by way of another Adjournment debate—to discuss the most practical ways of cutting car use. Indeed, hon. Members may refer to such measures during the debate. I am seeking to establish the degree of the Government's commitment to achieving road traffic reduction. I want to ask crucial questions and, to ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), is able to respond to them in detail, I faxed them to his office yesterday. I look forward to his comprehensive responses.
Labour fought the election promising that it would reduce traffic levels. Its promise—which appeared in its policy handbook, on the election website and in policy briefings—was that it would
"reduce and then reverse traffic growth."
It was clearly a two-stage promise: first to reduce traffic growth, and then to reverse it. The second stage of that promise was crystal clear.
Labour's White Paper was also crystal clear, if somewhat unsatisfactory. It referred to setting the framework to reduce road traffic growth. That does not deliver on the second stage of Labour's election promise.
234
It is true that the Government have promised to reduce traffic in specific areas. Paragraph 1.35 of the White Paper says:
"We also want to see an absolute reduction in traffic in those places … where its environmental damage is worst."
That is welcome, but it still forgets the earlier, clear promise to cut the total level of traffic.
Further impetus has been given to the need for traffic reduction by the findings of Sir Donald Acheson, the former chief medical officer, who has just completed his inquiry into inequalities in health. Sir Donald recommended further measures to reduce the use of motor cars so as to lessen health inequalities and social exclusion in three areas. He said that reducing traffic would
"decrease air pollution and probably also reduce road traffic accidents. The benefit of the decreases is likely to be gained most by people experiencing disadvantage."
That is true, and those suffering most disadvantage are the poor and the socially excluded. Sir Donald went on to say that reducing road traffic would also reduce deaths in young men, and would improve the health of ethnic minorities. He found that areas
"with high proportions of ethnic residents … are associated with a high rate of traffic accidents amongst children from some minority ethnic groups."
Will Labour keep both parts of the promise that it made before the election and reverse traffic growth? Will it heed Sir Donald's advice and reduce traffic, and put health first and cars second? I should also like the Under-Secretary to clarify statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister, and to explain apparent contradictions between those statements and others released by his Department. The Deputy Prime Minister has been admirably clear about his intentions in his current job. Shortly after coming to power, he told The Guardian:
"I will have failed if in five years time there are … not far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it."
After the publication of the White Paper, in the House, I challenged the Deputy Prime Minister specifically on his words in The Guardian and on Labour's promise to reverse traffic growth. He said:
"I agree to keep to that commitment: judge my performance in five years."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1071.]
I was pleased to hear him confirm his promises. However, since then, others in his Department have undermined that promise. Fourteen days later, the Minister for Transport in London in answer to a parliamentary question, said:
"in order to tackle the congestion and pollution that is caused by road traffic, we need to reduce the rate of road traffic growth."— [Official Report, 3 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 458.]
On 13 November, she wrote to me ostensibly to clarify what the Deputy Prime Minister had so clearly told me. However, the letter did not clarify it—it changed it completely, saying that Labour intended to reduce the rate of growth in traffic, although it stated that there would be an absolute reduction in traffic in those areas where the most environmental damage is done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)indicated assent.
Mr. Brake: The Minister is nodding his head, but the letter failed to restate the crucial second stage of Labour's election promise to reverse traffic growth so as to reduce

235
the overall level of traffic. On 3 December, Lord Whitty, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, publicised a speech that he was making at the Chartered Institute of Transport. His press release yet again failed to confirm Labour's pre-election promise to reverse traffic growth. It did promise traffic reduction in some areas—again—but, as I have said, that does not deliver Labour's promises.
At the end of his press release, Lord Whitty introduced a new phrase. He promised:
"The New Deal for Transport and the two Road Traffic Reduction Acts will help to provide the framework for the Government's commitment to deliver a real reduction in road traffic."
The contradictions in his speech continued. In the third paragraph, he restated the formula that there would be a reduction in traffic growth, and an absolute reduction, but only in some areas; in the fourth paragraph, he confirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister's promise in regard to reducing car journeys had not changed.
Cynical people have suggested that that could be setting the stage for a ridiculous U-turn: that the Deputy Prime Minister aims to cut the number of journeys made, but will allow those that remain to become twice as long. If that is the case, the Deputy Prime Minister will not only look ridiculous, but still be breaking the promises that Labour made before the election, and the personal assurance that he gave me in the House on 20 October that he would keep both those promises.
Let me ask the Under-Secretary some more questions. Do the Government still intend to keep the promises given by the Deputy Prime Minister—in the House, and to The Guardian—to reduce traffic, or does the so-called clarification in the letter that I received from the Minister for Transport in London mean that those promises have been abandoned? Can the Under-Secretary confirm that—as the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in answering my question—the Government intend to reduce absolute traffic levels in the United Kingdom, and not just to cut the number of journeys without ensuring that that results in an absolute reduction in traffic? Can he confirm that real traffic reduction, as described in his Department's press release, means that there will be less traffic on our roads?
Let me list some pledges of support for traffic reduction given by other Ministers. I shall begin with the Under-Secretary himself. On 30 October 1996, he wrote to a constituent in order to
"just reiterate my support for traffic reduction, both locally and nationally."
After the election, in August 1997, he wrote to his local newspaper—the Greenwich Mercury, of which I have a copy here—
"I have always made my views clear … our overriding priority must be to reduce the total volume of traffic".
I stress the words "total volume of traffic." The Under-Secretary's position certainly was clear, but, as the White Paper has confused the issue somewhat, I ask him to confirm that that is still the case.
The Minister for Transport in London has also made her position clear, and, because of her particular responsibilities, has had far more opportunities to put her views on record. In Hampstead high street, during the run-up to the general election, she made it plain to
236
her constituents that she supported traffic reduction; during the same period, she also signed early-day motion 289. Both declarations went further than what has been said by the Under-Secretary, as they expressed support for a target of a 10 per cent. traffic reduction by 2010.
Since taking her current job, the Minister for Transport in London has repeatedly stated her support for traffic reduction. During the passage of the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill earlier this year, she restated that commitment no fewer than seven times. On Third Reading, she said:
"The country cannot continue as it is—there must be a reduction in road traffic."—[Official Report, 24 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 1119.]
Will the Under-Secretary confirm that his colleague will keep those promises, and will go further than she did in her letter to me, which states merely that the Government will reduce the rate of traffic growth?
The Minister for the Environment told the "Today" programme in December last year that Labour would deliver
"a major change in the use of transport and the reduced use of cars and vehicles on the road."
He had previously told his constituents that he supported the same 10 per cent. targets as the Minister for Transport in London—and her early-day motion—although, unlike her, he had not signed the early-day motion, because of his position on the Front Bench.
Can the Under-Secretary confirm that the Government will deliver on those promises? As a Back Bencher in opposition, he was able to sign early-day motions, and did so—again, making his position very clear, and supporting a reduction in traffic.
The newest arrival at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), also supports traffic reduction. Just two days before the general election, he wrote to a constituent who had asked for his views on a Bill to set 10 per cent. national traffic reduction targets:
"Many thanks for your letter … I would support such a Bill."
I have the hon. Gentleman's letter here. As a Back Bencher, he stuck to that promise, and, in further letters written in July and September, he told constituents that he had signed early-day motion 18 and assured them that he would support the national targets Bill on Second Reading. I have those letters as well. In the event, there was no vote, but the hon. Gentleman's intentions are clearly set out in letters to constituents. Will Labour deliver on his promises, and all those of other Ministers in the Department?
In the Labour party overall, more than 40 Ministers have declared their support for 10 per cent. traffic reduction targets. Eighty per cent. of Labour Members have supported those targets, and even more have declared support for traffic reduction without specifying a figure. Will the Government keep the promises made by all those Members of Parliament, or will they be abandoned by a policy that, rather feebly, aims only to reduce traffic growth?
Those questions are crucial. According to the very first paragraph of Labour's White Paper:
"the way we travel is damaging our towns and cities and harming our countryside."

237
That refers to current traffic volumes, not the even-greater volumes that we shall experience in future if the Government merely reduce traffic growth and ignore the damage that traffic is causing to our children, our industry, our health and our economy.
There is enormous support for traffic reduction. Support has been expressed by, among other organisations, the Townswomens Guild, the Womens Institute, the British Medical Association, the British Lung Foundation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Asthma Campaign and the Childrens Play Council. The list goes on and on. The Government know that, because they received 7,300 replies to their consultation document on transport policy. Page 12 of "The Government's Consultation on Developing an Integrated Transport Policy: A Report" states:
"Almost everyone wanted to see a reduction in road traffic."
We need traffic reduction. In the wealth of statements that the Government have issued since the White Paper, we have seen endless variations on phrases using the words "traffic" and "reduction", almost always spoilt by the addition of words such as "growth" and "in some areas". However, the Department's press release of 3 December introduced a new word: "real". It stated:
"The New Deal for Transport and the two Road Traffic Reduction Acts will help to provide the framework for the Government's commitment to deliver a real reduction in road traffic."
My final question to the Under-Secretary is this. Does "real" traffic reduction mean an increase or a decrease in the amount of traffic on the roads in the United Kingdom? He ought to tell the people of Britain exactly what his Government are planning, and not hide behind even more ingenious and tortuous phrases that avoid making their plans clear. He should answer this question, yes or no: does the Government's "real reduction in road traffic" mean fewer cars on our roads?
9.48 am
Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on the eloquence with which he has put his case for traffic reduction, which is the crucial environmental issue of our time. However, his case was undermined by his all-pervasive cynicism about the motivation of every Minister, past and present. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) will put him right in regard to the Government's motivation.
I also think that the Liberal Democrats would help their case more if they were consistent across the country. One of the major planks of Government policy—a policy instigated by the last Government—to secure traffic reduction is the fuel price escalator. Liberal Democrats in certain parts of the country are always saying that that is fine for urban areas, but not acceptable for rural areas. I feel that, if the Liberal Democrats wish to present a consistent policy nationally, they should not only put the case for their own areas—as they do, quite legitimately—but start talking to their colleagues who represent rural areas, and who do not yet seem convinced of the argument for the fuel price escalator.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Can the hon. Gentleman produce any evidence at all showing that increasing fuel prices affects the way in which people use their cars?
Mr. Chaytor: If the hon. Gentleman looked at work by the transport studies unit at Oxford university, he would find considerable evidence.
The real issue in rural areas is rural poverty. Not applying the fuel price escalator to rural areas does little about the core problem of rural poverty, which is far better addressed by wider economic policies and by the adjustment of standard spending assessments in the local government settlement to give an advantage to low-income families in rural areas and to compensate for the effect of any fuel price increase.
I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I want to reiterate the arguments for road traffic reduction, however we define the precise means by which road traffic is reduced. First, it is critical that we reduce road traffic for reasons of mitigating pollution. We have accepted stringent targets following the Kyoto protocol. As a Government, we have put forward even more stringent targets voluntarily to meet targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Cutting the use of the private car is one of the crucial means of reaching those targets.
Secondly, we have to reduce congestion to improve the quality of life for people in urban areas. The most recent report about traffic speeds in London tells us that, in some parts, the average speed of the private car is 10 miles an hour. That is no different from the average speed of vehicles 100 years ago. What is the purpose of developing the technology and that vast industry if all we are doing is clogging up the roads and turning our motorways into moving car packs?
Thirdly, we have to reduce traffic for reasons of health. Everyone is now aware of the chronic rise in asthma cases, particularly in urban areas. There is a direct relationship between the rise in road traffic and the rise in asthma and other respiratory diseases. Fourthly, we have to reduce road traffic for reasons of efficiency. It is not economically efficient to move people around the country in the way that we do, with such domination of the private car and with the consequent traffic jams, delays, missed appointments and additional expense.
I congratulate the Government on their latest statement, yesterday's Green Paper, which fulfils their promise to introduce action specifically on business parking in town centres and city centres and which gives local authorities the power to introduce congestion charging. Those are two admirable policies that further progress the Government's action, although there is more to do. There are three points particularly that I should like the Government to take on board. I am sure that many hon. Members would agree with me on those.
First, it is regrettable that, as yet, we have not extended the principle of taxation on town and city centre car parking spaces to out-of-town supermarkets. One of the most disastrous social and economic developments of recent years has been the rapid growth of huge out-of-town hypermarkets, which destroy the lifeblood of many of our small town centres and shopping centres. The point is that we do not have a level playing field because, in most small town centres, there is a car parking charge,

239
but there is no car parking charge in the huge out-ofcentre hypermarkets. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members would argue for a level playing field to give town centres a chance of survival, particularly small traders in town centres.
Secondly, I urge the Government to look again at the company car tax regime. Everyone knows that the way in which the system operates provides incentives for company car owners to do more mileage. The system has to be changed. The thresholds have to be adjusted to provide an incentive to do less mileage.
Thirdly, I ask the Government to look again at the fuel tax escalator. It was brought in at 5 per cent. a year by the previous Government. It was increased to 6 per cent. a year by the present Government. Since then, oil prices have fallen to their lowest level since 1970. Is the 6 per cent. a year rise having sufficient effect, given the fall in oil prices, and the increased fuel efficiency that enables motorists to get more miles per gallon out of modern vehicles? The level of the fuel tax escalator needs to be kept under constant review.
An additional point relating to the fuel tax escalator is that it is a progressive tax, the reason being that 30 per cent. of the population are not affected by it. Thirty per cent. of the population do not own vehicles. By and large—there are some non-car owning families among the professional and managerial classes, but not many—it is the poorest third of the population who do not own vehicles. Therefore, they are not affected by the rise in petrol prices.
Wealth can be defined by not only the ownership and usage of vehicles, but the miles travelled by the vehicle. The richer a person is, the more likely it is that that person will own one or more cars and travel large distances in those cars. Therefore, the application of the fuel price escalator is a progressive measure in taxation terms. I appreciate that progressive taxation is not attractive to all hon. Members, but it should be to Labour Members.
For 100 years, we have defined the growing wealth of society in terms largely of the growth in material possessions and the motor car is the central material possession. We have defined our gross domestic product according to the number of motor cars produced. Our GDP increases the more cars we produce. It also increases the more car alarms and anti-theft devices we produce.
Is the dominance of, and reliance on, the motor car as a central economic indicator a sensible way in which to define the wealth and prosperity of society? That is not an issue for this debate, but it should be taken up in another debate. The time has come to review the way in which we define GDP. It is time that we considered other things in measuring the wealth and prosperity of a nation, the level of crime and the quality of the environment being two prime indicators that should be included.
I welcome the debate. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has raised important points and asked important questions. I congratulate the Government on their achievements to date, but there is much more work to do.
9.58 am
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea): I had some sympathy with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon.
240
Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), as he listened to the past two speeches, as the Government are in a tangle because of manifesto commitments somewhat recklessly dispersed. I can understand the Minister for Transport in London, on the pavement, according to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), saying those things. As someone who went to that constituency in the last general election, I know that Hampstead high street is completely jammed seven hours a day. As people came up to her, complained and said, "What are you going to do about it?" she would say, "Oh yes. We are committed to traffic reduction," just as Labour was committed to reducing animal experiments in laboratories. It is having a bit of a problem on that commitment, too.
I will tell hon. Members how to reduce traffic: engineer a recession. That will reduce it fast enough. The first indicator of economic recovery is always a rise in traffic volumes. Traffic can be reduced in the same way as cash flow into supermarkets or holiday bookings with tour operators can be reduced: ensure that less money is circulating.
Of course, hon. Members do not really mean that they want to reduce traffic. They do not want to stop people moving about; certainly the Government could not possibly want to stop people moving about. What they mean is that they want to reduce use of cars because, for various atavistic reasons, socialists and interventionist liberals do not like the motor car. They want public transport, and what is public transport? It is assembling a group of total strangers, putting them in a metal container, making them start from a starting point that was not their choice and conveying them to a destination that is inconvenient.
There was something to be said for trying to improve public transport and raise standards while it was genuinely public but, thanks to measures taken by the Conservative party—but not when I was in this place—there is no longer any such thing as genuine public transport anywhere. It is simply a monopoly that is determined to extract as much profit as possible from those who use it. As a result, quality has not improved. If anything, it has fallen because, instead of a monopoly dominated by the trade union movement, so one could not complain, and run for its convenience, there is now a monopoly run to enhance the profit of shareholders—those who own so-called public transport, by which I mean the metal containers that convey total strangers from destination to destination. Therefore, public transport is as dirty, squalid, inefficient and unreliable as it was in the old days. Public transport is a complete chimera.
I have read with great anxiety that some of the taxes that are to be levied on cars will be hypothecated to local authorities, which will be directed to use the money for public transport. In other words, it will be used to enhance the profits of Stagecoach, Branson and so forth, at the expense of imposing great inconvenience on the car owner and private individuals who like to get about under their own power, according to their choice and at their convenience by making the best use of technology.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) mentioned pollution, and his argument was valid. The pollution generated by old cars is probably high. The Morris Minor, which is the most favoured transport of the sandal-wearing brigade, generates far more

241
pollution than a modern Audi and is also extremely difficult to drive while wearing sandals—I have tried it and it is dangerous.
I shall listen with care to the Under-Secretary's reply, as he has quite a juggling act to perform. Everyone wants to reduce traffic in their immediate vicinity, naturally. All our constituents want to "reduce traffic" in particular locations within the constituency boundaries. However, people do not face up to the principal element of the argument, which is that traffic volumes are an indicator of economic prosperity. The argument is used as a cover for getting at the car.
The fact is that car use emphasises everything that is congenial and acceptable in today's political climate. It has elements of freedom, choice, mobility, convenience, technology and, I admit, elements of a certain competitive consumerism, which is highly economically generative, as the hon. Member for Bury, North said.
Naturally, hon. Members have every interest in ensuring that car use is responsible. We are here to legislate for that. However, we cannot legislate it out of existence, or even attempt to do so. If the Government do, they will not only add enormously to the economic burdens felt by practically every citizen, but—as the Under-Secretary and his colleague the Whip are probably aware—in the long run, they will make themselves electorally extremely unpopular.
10.4 am
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Far be it from me to try to elaborate on the description that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) gave of public transport, but another inconvenience of travelling by that means is the chance that one has in winter of catching a nasty cold or some other disease. That always happens to me when I use public transport.
I am amazed at the sanctimonious humbug talked on these occasions and I think of the old adage, "Make me pure, O God, but not just yet." If we ask people who speak against the motor car how many their family owns, they usually um and ah, but admit finally that they have one for themselves, of course they use it only occasionally, one for the wife, who only goes shopping in it, and one for the other grown-up members of the family, who use it only in the evening.
It is true that this country has a large number of private cars, but when I have discussed the subject with, for example, Ford and have asked, "How can you possibly sell all those new cars?" I am told that people buy them not merely to drive but as status symbols. The car sits on the front drive, the neighbours admire it and everyone knows that one is going up in the world. That is part of the joy of owning a car.
Although there are, apparently, 20 million cars on our roads, they are not all on the road at the same time—far from it, some hardly leave the garage except once a year for a visit to relatives at Christmas, for example. The number of cars owned is irrelevant to the amount of use to which they are put. Everyone knows that one can buy a good used car, which someone has owned for a year but which has only 90 miles on the clock—a bargain, I believe.
An awful lot of nonsense is talked on the subject and there are a lot of myths. First, on the pollution myth, particulates—the little bits of stuff that come out of
242
the exhaust—emitted by modern motor cars have been reduced by about 90 per cent. Modern technology is such that motor cars will soon not pump much out of their rear ends apart from fresh air. Of course, there will be some products of combustion but, as I have said so many times in the House that I feel I am almost becoming boring, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere amounts to such a tiny quantity that it is not a great threat to our atmosphere and environment.
Mr. Chaytor: If the hon. Lady really believes that carbon dioxide levels in the environment are no threat, can she explain why all nations are conscious of the need to act against greenhouse gas emissions? Why did they meet 12 months ago in Kyoto to negotiate a difficult programme of action and two months ago in Buenos Aires to negotiate the further details of means by which they can reduce emissions? Does she completely reject the argument that greenhouse gas emissions cause an unacceptable build-up of carbon dioxide and impact on global warming and climate change? Who else in the world shares her view?
Mrs. Gorman: A great many scientists share that view. There are about 300 parts of carbon dioxide to 1 million in the atmosphere, which is the equivalent of throwing a sugar cube in Loch Lomond. Carbon dioxide has been targeted because it is a product of certain industrial activities that people dislike, so it is an easy substance to blame. Water vapour is far more important as a so-called greenhouse gas, but no one complains about that as it is obviously foolish to try to do anything about it because water covers three quarters of the globe. Perhaps we should have the science lesson on another day.
We talk about our streets being congested, but everyone knows that it is easy to get around at certain times of day. It is not congestion but congestion of use that is the problem. During the school holidays, we can all drive much more freely because mothers are not taking their children to school. We must devise ways to spread traffic and one way is road pricing—an idea that never seems to be taken up because it is deemed to be difficult to implement. I know people who will not cross the Dartford bridge because they have to pay £1. They would rather go all the way round to save £1, which tells us that drivers are price sensitive. If they were required to pay for the amount of road used on a journey, it would make them decide whether that journey was necessary.
I shall briefly describe the experience in other parts of the world, as I have lived in the United States, Canada, Mexico and Australia and I often travel to the continent, for example to Germany, and have taken an interest in traffic problems for years. For example, New York did away with parking meters in the heart of the city, which meant that traffic could flow freely. Anybody travelling through Soho or Mayfair or the centre of any city in the day will see narrow roads with parking meters on both sides, reducing access to a narrow central lane. They must think that we are crazy because we are blocking our arteries for the sake of a few measly pounds. I know that Westminster city council regards the revenue from parking meters as a nice little extra, but it is not necessary or sensible to allow parking on our streets.
Most people who live in New York do not own cars. They use public transport during the week—mostly taxis—and hire cars at the weekends. That is the way of life of the well-to-do in some big cities.

243
Many cities in Germany do not allow lorries to stop between 7 am and 7 pm. There is no parking, no long-term deliveries and no stopping for five hours while builders put up scaffolding. All that has to take place during times when roads are less busy. Staggering the use of the roads reduces the problem. That is another sensible example. Instead of using the roads on an ad hoc basis, we should spread their use over different times of the day.
The lorry industry is having a bad time at the moment because of the fuel tax here. Fuel is very much cheaper on the continent and we are pricing our lorry drivers out of business. There are something like 250,000 lorries in British ownership, but far more come from the continent every day bringing large quantities of consumer goods, food and so on.
I use the M2, which runs from Dover to London and is crowded with lorries travelling nose to tail, all going into central London in the middle of the day. Although lorries are relatively few compared with cars, they are huge. I made some inquiries of the lorry owners and the big companies that use them. They told me that, because the great new lorries that are part of the EU requirements are so enormous, it is now cheaper to keep the goods on the lorries and keep them moving around our roadways 24 hours a day. In the old days, they took the stuff to a warehouse where it was unloaded on to smaller vehicles and taken to delivery points. We have created a position where lorries are moving around our main highways 24 hours a day because it is cheaper than stopping and unloading the cargo for distribution in small vans, perhaps at more convenient times.
We are not using our roads sensibly, so we can reasonably complain that congestion is difficult to manage at certain times of the day. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), on the number of red routes in his constituency. I have written to him to congratulate him on the one from Blackheath to New Cross. I hope that it is extended. Many of the main arteries into the centre of London become congested during the day because they have only single yellow lines. Taxi hire firms keep all their vehicles waiting along the road, half a dozen people are loading and unloading, somebody is putting up scaffolding and somebody else has popped down to the corner shop for a packet of tea. All that traffic is allowed to congest and disturb our roads, so it is not surprising that we have these debates from time to time.
Finally, our country is not covered with roads. If all the towns and streets were whacked together, they would represent only 15 per cent of the land mass of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we are a country that is largely rural and there is still plenty of space. The hysteria that we hear whenever anybody wants to improve the roads in Britain should be dealt with sensibly by setting out the facts.
We should have more and better roads. The lunatics in some Labour boroughs who widen the pavements for no good reason, and just reduce the space for motorists, ought to be curbed. We should come to terms with the fact that, these days, people prize their freedom and independence which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea said, is represented by their ability to jump in the car and take the family out for a
244
nice day in the sun, or, for women, by the convenience of not having to drag bags of shopping from the local high street home on the bus. I remember doing that as a young woman and I would not want to go back to it. I use the out-of-town hypermarket precisely because it is so convenient and I hope to goodness that none of these curmudgeons are ever allowed to stop those developments. I hope that the Under-Secretary, who has the powers to make good and sensible use of our roads, will apply common sense and not the hysteria and humbug that we hear in attacks on the motorist.
10.16 am
Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell): We have heard some interesting speeches being made with genuine feeling, although I disagree with some of them. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) said that the Liberal Democrats had not consistently supported the fuel price escalator. We have always taken the position that as the fuel price escalator produces more income, it will provide the opportunity to cut other taxes. I have always used that equation. We have argued that vehicle excise duty should be abolished for two thirds of vehicles—all small-engined vehicles. The Government decided to increase the fuel price escalator, although they could well have argued that they did not have sufficient room to manoeuvre as the existing fuel price escalator plans had been budgeted in for forward spending. In increasing the fuel price escalator, they could have applied a joint equation, but they did not. I consider that to be a failure because of my wider concern about environmental taxation becoming unpopular if it is used simply as a way to increase taxes.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bury, North about charging for parking at out-of-town shopping centres. I regret that that proposal was removed from the White Paper at a very late stage. I represent some rural market towns that suffer considerably as a result of out-of-town developments that were allowed by the previous Government, on appeal, against the wishes of the local community. They have had an enormous impact on town centres, particularly St. Austell which is now very run down.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to keep the fuel price escalator under review. Although the Conservatives now kick up a lot of fuss about it—despite the fact that they introduced it in the first place—it has not had a measurably large impact at the pump, simply because the raw material price has been falling. If the price of the raw material rises and there are sharp increases at the pump, there will be strong public opposition to that and to the tax. Perhaps we should consider an escalator system that ties into the fuel prices at the pump rather than a simple percentage. It may be easier for the Treasury and the Government in terms of forward planning, but it may not produce the outcome that they seek in either direction. It may not lever up fuel prices gradually as intended; they may go up too fast or not at all, depending on the raw material costs.
The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) suggested that socialists and interventionist Liberals were anti-car. I am not. I like cars and I like driving, but I do not like traffic jams, congestion and pollution. If we are honest, we all know that we sometimes use the car when we do not need to, but perhaps more often we are forced to do so when we do

245
not want to. Out-of-town shopping is a good example, as is the lack of public transport in some areas for getting to work.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to the number of cars which is a real problem in urban areas. In towns such as Truro, traditional terraced streets do not have the capacity for people to park outside their homes. The problem will get worse and will change the way in which people use cars. Quite irrespective of Government policy, the convenience of the car is considerably diminished if people cannot park outside their homes, and that is already causing fights. People put bollards outside their homes to stop people parking and neighbourhood disputes break out, yet the current level of car ownership is relatively low compared with the number of adults who could potentially own cars and say that they would like to in future. However, for the most part this is a debate about car ownership, not about car use. The hon. Member for Billericay acknowledged that.
Mrs. Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: I will not, because the hon. Lady spoke a moment ago. I have not said anything with which she would disagree and I am conscious of the time. She mentioned road pricing, which I will come to.
I want to anticipate an attack that we have heard previously from the Conservative Front Bench, although we have not heard it, interestingly enough, from the Back Benches today. The Conservative Front-Bench team has swung around entirely on its previous course and now puts itself up as the great opponent of the road fuel price escalator. When challenged on that, spokesmen say that it is the 1 per cent. that Labour has added that makes the difference, but in all their propaganda, they talk about the fuel price escalator as a whole. For the record, over 18 years, the Conservatives increased excise duty on fuel by 600 per cent. Between 1992 and 1996 alone, they raised £58 billion from fuel tax, of which £25 billion directly resulted from the imposition of the escalator.
In addition, the Conservatives sold off public transport services, took no action to stop the loss of rural bus routes and cut the money for transport packages for local authorities. They introduced deregulation of bus services, which has been an abject failure in improving rural bus services, which continue to decline. Privatisation of the railways has brought increased fares, massive increases in the number of complaints, massively increased overcrowding and, as the regulators themselves say, deteriorating services in many areas. The fuel price increases were not used to improve public transport services. Rail fares increased by 50 per cent. and bus fares increased by 40 per cent.
Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that during most of the period when we were increasing fuel excise duties, road fuels in this country were cheaper than on the continent, whereas now they are significantly more expensive, which is beginning to create market distortions? I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's party was in favour of harmonisation of this sort of thing, being a pro-federalist party. When does the hon. Gentleman think that the fuel escalator ought to come
246
to an end? No other country in the EU has a fuel escalator and if we keep it indefinitely, it will create more and more of a distortion.
Mr. Taylor: The previous Government did not give a timetable for ending the road fuel price escalator. It was budgeted in for the whole of the current period under Conservative plans. If it is now the policy of the Conservatives to stop it, perhaps they should say why it was not their policy before the general election and how they would make up the huge budget deficit that would result. I presume that they would do so by cutting the health and education improvements that have been made, which is, of course, what they have said they would do. However, they have said that they would do it to meet an existing tax deficit, not a new one.
The fundamental answer is that all countries, especially European countries, are now committed through the Kyoto agreement substantially to reduce carbon dioxide emission increases in Europe. Countries will have to follow paths that lead to reductions in fuel use. I congratulate the Conservatives on pioneering the road fuel price escalator. It is rather pathetic that they have reversed their position to court popularity now that they are out of office. I believe that they will find that the policy will be adopted by other countries.
Road traffic reduction has overwhelming support in this place, as has already been said. It has overwhelming support among Labour Members, let alone support from the Labour Front-Bench team in the past. I trust that if a road traffic reduction Bill with national targets was introduced, the Minister would not use his offices or the offices of the Labour Whips to prevent its being passed. No doubt there would be negotiations about the detail. There might even be negotiation about the target, but there should be no negotiation about the principle of road traffic reduction because it was a specific commitment in Labour's manifesto.
The arguments in the House have moved on a long way from when road traffic reduction was first proposed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) in 1994. We then saw local targets introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The House is now far more in agreement on such issues, but the remaining areas of concern—economic damage, unrealistic targets and the possible regressive nature of traffic reduction—are still spoken about. It is our job to present the counter-arguments.
We have to remember that almost one third of households in Britain do not own a car. The majority of those people are poor, sick, disabled or elderly. The process of cutting unnecessary traffic growth and investing in public transport directly benefits those very poor people. In rural areas, we see some of the highest levels of dependency on cars and some of the highest levels of inability to afford them and of people without a car. The policies that have promoted the car have a direct and materially devastating impact on people in rural areas. If we introduce measures to make it less necessary to travel, such as more support for local schools and shops, and better planning so that road use is not built in as estates and shops are developed, we make it easier for people in both rural and urban areas to drive less. However, the main target of road traffic reduction will be urban areas.

247
I welcome the fact that the Government have built road traffic reduction into the London government Bill. It is crucial that that works; it will be a pioneering effort. If it is done right, it will show that more can be done across the rest of the country, so we give that measure support and we look for more. We hope to see a Bill for the rest of the country soon, but above all, we hope that the Government will stand by their manifesto pledge and back national road traffic reduction, not simply a reduction in the growth of road traffic.
10.26 am
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise to the House for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I declare an interest in the Register of Members' Interests. I am chairman of a small Irish medium-tech company that counts cars going in and out of car parks. That is not relevant to the debate, but it is worth putting on the record. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the railways. One of my brothers-in-law runs a railway company.
It is worth noting that the increase in the use of the railways has not come from the provision of extra railway lines. We are going to have more railway lines. We have had many more stations opened in the past 10 years than probably at any time in the past 80 years, but it is worth noting that it is possible to achieve greater transport use without creating more infrastructure. The people who have looked on the roads debate as one that suggests that the increase in the number of roads has led to an increase in the amount of traffic have got it completely wrong. Growth in traffic and in movement comes in the main from prosperity and from emancipation.
In the 1930s, the people who had cars were white, middle-aged men in full-time occupations. As soon as pensioners, students, ethnic minorities and women start to have their own car, people start to say, "Let us bring in a system of road pricing." Such a system would cut out the pensioners, the students, the poor, women and ethnic minorities. We are left with white, middle-class men in full-time occupations with a fistful of fivers in their back pocket who can continue driving. That is one of the reasons why direct charging in a conventional sense is wrong.
The debate today is not about road pricing; it is about road traffic reduction. I am one of those who has supported road traffic reduction Bills from the beginning, in part because it is the kind of thing that I supported when I was a Minister at the Department of Transport 13 years ago. This Government go around sloganising and saying that the previous Government went in for predict and provide. We did not. We built only some of the roads, which were essential. We did not go around building roads that were merely convenient.
For example, anyone who claimed that the Okehampton bypass was just a desirable thing did not understand what the problems were there. In some of the London boroughs, town centre bypass schemes, often strongly desired by local authorities, help to provide civilisation for people who otherwise have to compete, when they are shopping, going to school, going to church and living, with through traffic. Traffic, whether on railways or roads, should be, in effect, in traffic canals. That helps to reduce risk and improve the environment.
248
How can we sensibly reduce road traffic? Let us assume that Britain continues to grow at 2 per cent. a year for the next 100 years. That implies a material standard of living seven and a half times greater than now. Keynes told us that in his piece "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren", published in "Essays in Persuasion". We ought always to remember that, even at 2 per cent. growth, which I argue is slightly below trend, many more people will be provided with the opportunity to own many more things. They will be able to own more homes and more cars, go on more holidays and do all sorts of things that are denied to many of them now. But I am talking about them not about us. We have a five-storey car park in the House of Commons. I am talking about the people whom we represent, who are among those who make 60 per cent. of their journeys on foot. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) asks why we widen the pavements; it is probably to make it more convenient for those who use them.
When people start talking about benefits from congestion charging, they should remember the example of the City of London. What level of road pricing would have been needed to achieve what sensible traffic planning achieved in the City with the so-called plastic bollard approach, which would have been implemented even without the IRA bomb? What level of charging would have excluded private traffic from Oxford street where, even now that there are only taxis and buses, pedestrians can move faster than traffic? The answer is not simply to charge.
One of the biggest changes since I became a Member of Parliament in 1975 is that most teachers then did not drive to school, whereas now most teachers do; then, most pupils were not driven to school, whereas now most are. Instead of telling pupils that they should not be driven to school, we should ask how we can identify the proportion of teachers, governors and pupils who come to school in ways other than by car and so have the figures, year by year. Then, we can start thinking about incentives: for example, if we go on improving schools, more people will go to the school that is nearer to them, instead of to one that is further away.
Perhaps we should do as the all-party cycling group suggested last evening and, instead of making pupils who go home by bike wait for 10 minutes until all the cars have gone, let pupils on bikes go 10 minutes early and hold back the pupils who will be collected by car. We can use small market signals such as that. It would certainly be worth putting on the national news the impact of the cycling provision in Oxford, which has led to almost a 40 per cent. reduction in cyclist casualties even before the extra benefits of having cycling helmets and reasonably well-maintained bikes are taken into account. In all those ways, we can begin to make a difference.
I have proposed before that the gates of the House of Commons car park should be locked, at least for one day a year and preferably for a week a year.
Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have his car parked here.
Mr. Chaytor: To pick up on the hon. Gentleman's point about the House of Commons car park, does he

249
agree with me and a small number of other Members of Parliament that it would be entirely consistent with Government policy if a charge were imposed on car parking spaces in the House of Commons car park?
Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps, but I suspect that hon. Members would find some way of including the charge in their office cost expenses.
We have done one good thing in getting rid of the crazy system, which I opposed when it was first introduced, under which the bigger a Member of Parliament's car, the greater the mileage allowance given. We must remember that, if we point a finger at someone else, three fingers will point back at us, so we should first try the measures ourselves. For example, rather than ask the Fees Office to disclose the exact mileage claimed by each Member of Parliament, it might be a good idea to publicise the number of miles that Members of Parliament as a group claim each year, and then try to ensure that that figure decreases. It would be marvellous if the Deputy Prime Minister, instead of getting publicity for stopping to help elderly couples who break down on the motorway, got publicity for helping pensioners with suitcases to get down from a train. There are all sorts of individual measures we could take, but we should try them out ourselves first. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) said, people like cars. I have nothing against cars—indeed, our household has two.
Unless we recognise the need for mobility of those who do not have access to a car, we shall not achieve our underlying goal of increasing people's well-being, which is a mixture of wealth and welfare, and helping them to have choices. In the City of London are some of the better-paid people in this country, yet 80 per cent. of them come to work by public transport, not because they cannot afford to drive—indeed, they are more likely than other people to own a car—but because it is not in their interests to drive. The option they take is a better option than driving. We must fix on that, for if our aim is to aid the mobility of those to whom choice is currently denied, we are far more likely to develop an attractive alternative for individuals who currently have a choice, but who too often choose to use their car.
I would caution the House against swallowing measures that are merely a passing fashion. An example of that is the Greater London lorry ban, which was introduced in the mid-1980s. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said, in a rather perverse way people were told that they could not use the roads 24 hours a day and make their deliveries at suitable times. To be exempt from the lorry ban, a firm had to fill in a 10-page document; 20,000 firms did so, so 200,000 pages were filled in. Those documents had to be read by the checking authority and, if approved, the firm got an exemption. Two thousand signs were put up; the scheme cost £250,000 to begin with and, by its end, was costing £750,000.
The number of lorries that were denied an exemption was four. The Greater London council did not even bother to discover that until I got someone to ask the question. In the last month of the life of the GLC, it gave out the information that the number of lorries that did not get an exemption was four. I would not accuse the Government of putting on such a gloss, because they have not been in office for long enough, but if they start doing that sort of thing, they will be subjected to the same sort of inquisition. They must find better ways to make progress.
250
In my view, we can make progress in reducing the growth in traffic and, in many cases, we can reduce the amount of traffic. However, we shall achieve that only by introducing sensible measures that work, not by doing things to get a short-term round of applause.
10.36 am
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I hope that I do not start my speech by embarrassing my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) with a piece of one-upmanship, but my family is only a one-car family and I have taken to cycling around London. Doing so saves quite a lot in taxi fares and allows me to feel that I am doing my bit to improve conditions in central London.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) balanced the ticket for the Liberal Democrats in the usual way, by saying that he was pro-car when their policy is obviously anti-car. I do not recommend that he sends his speech to A-level students in his constituency, because they might spot some of the inconsistencies in his answer to my question.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on obtaining the debate. I thank him for sending his questions in advance to the Minister, if only because it will be interesting to see how the Minister starts the process of getting out of some of the more ridiculous commitments that the Labour party made in opposition. It underlines the cynicism of new Labour that its leaders were prepared to make manifesto commitments to achieve utterly ludicrous objectives, when any sensible person would have known that it is unrealistic to aim for overall reductions in traffic volumes nationally.
The flexibility of the United Kingdom labour market has a great deal to do with people's being able to travel longer distances to work. The lifeblood of the economy is the ability to transport goods: whatever one's prejudices about the high street versus the out-of-town shopping centre, there is nothing one can buy in either a high street shop or a hypermarket that has not arrived by truck. It is ludicrous to suggest that we can return to buying local produce in local markets, because that would significantly reduce the quality of what was available. No Government will choke off economic growth by simply legislating for a reduction in traffic, and it is difficult to imagine how that aim would be achieved even if they did so.
The Government are having a go at gesticulating in front of their original objectives, but the fuel duty escalator, which they have increased, will not deliver. Research produced by the Centre for Economic and Business Research suggests that it would be necessary to increase the cost of petrol to £17 per gallon before it started to have any significant impact on traffic volumes. In the meantime, it would be the most vulnerable road users who were driven off the road, such as women in second cars and pensioners, who are one of the fastest-growing road user groups. The last thing pensioner couples in particular want to give up is their car. Low-paid people—particularly those in rural areas—who need to use their cars will be driven off the roads. They will lose their jobs and end up on benefit. Other groups, such as the disabled, who have no alternative but to use their cars will have to pay the excess fuel duties that the Government have levied.
The previous Government had to introduce the fuel escalator, but this Government have imposed substantial new taxes elsewhere—such as the £5 billion a year

251
pensions tax. The Government's first two Budgets have imposed the largest peacetime taxation increases seen in this country. It is ludicrous to plead that those increases were necessary: the Government have simply lost control of public expenditure.
In their manifesto, the Government spell out the legitimate and beneficial objective—which we support—of cutting congestion and pollution. That should be achievable, but the problem requires proper analysis. There has been virtually no growth in inner-urban traffic. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) has pointed out that road traffic speeds in central London are virtually the same as 100 years ago, and the same probably applies to the volume of traffic in inner London. The growth of inner-urban traffic in London is not the problem. By aiming at relatively small market segments in their transport policy—such as the school run and the journey to work—the Government are not tackling the real problem of traffic growth.
The document published yesterday by the Government, entitled "Breaking the Log Jam", starts from the completely wrong premise. It is introduced with a totally dishonest prospectus. Let us analyse the sequence of events properly. The first document produced as part of the Government's great transport policy was the comprehensive spending review. The Secretary of State was prevented from issuing his White Paper until the Chancellor had had his say and got his way in the spending review, which cut transport investment. The previous Conservative Government spent an average of £1 billion a year over five years on motorway and trunk road infrastructure improvements. This Government have cut that sum by two thirds, to only £300,000 a year. Only one bypass will be started in this financial year when there are all sorts of very good environmental reasons for building bypasses all over the country.
Mr. Alan Clark: That is a very interesting—and absolutely disgraceful—statistic. As a consequence of the Government's policy, more people will be killed on the roads. It has been established by every relevant statistic that one could encounter that motorway journeys are the safest mode of travel. By restricting the growth of motorways, the Government will ultimately and indirectly raise the number of road deaths.
Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. The Government are also benefiting from reduced rail subsidies—one of the dividends of privatisation. In addition, they are phasing out Treasury support for the tube.
Those measures were announced in the spending review. The Government then released the White Paper and recently published the Greater London Authority Bill, which contains skeleton provisions regarding congestion charging. They have also delivered a consultation paper—yet another one—on that issue. Even though the Government assume in the comprehensive spending review that they will collect revenue of £1 billion a year by 2005, that consultation paper asks who will pay congestion charges and how they will be collected. It is no surprise that Friends of the Earth has described the Government's transport policy as a case of "carry on consulting".
252
The Secretary of State has clearly been rolled over by the Treasury. The congestion and car parking charges will not mean extra money for transport. [Interruption.] I have clearly excited the Minister—I must have touched a raw nerve. That extra revenue will not mean extra money for transport; it will merely make up for the cuts. The tube cannot survive without a degree of subsidy. The Conservatives subsidised the tube to the tune of £400 million a year. The extra charges will simply transfer the tax burden for subsidising the tube from the Treasury to the motorist.
There will come a point when motorists—who already contribute more than £30 billion a year in taxation through fuel duties, value added tax and so on when less than one fifth of that money goes to transport—will begin to question whether the Government have produced a fair and proper transport policy. The Government are using the urban congestion argument as an excuse for collecting more taxes—the revenue will not go to transport—because they have lost control of the social security bill and have no welfare reform programme. That was evidenced last night with the introduction of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill.
As if finally to give the lie to the assurance that the extra money from the new charges and taxes will go to transport, paragraph 6.30 of the paper to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred says:
"the legislation will not restrict expenditure entirely to transport related matters".
The objective should be not so much reducing traffic overall, but cutting congestion and pollution, which was Labour's manifesto commitment. That makes sense, and we will seek to hold the Government to that commitment. We do not have excessive traffic overall, but too much of the wrong traffic in the wrong place. There is unsuitable traffic on unsuitable roads. While traffic growth in inner-urban areas is virtually nil and the volume of traffic is growing in suburban areas by 2 or 3 per cent. a year, there is real growth in inter-urban traffic. Yet the Government have not produced a single policy item to deal with or reduce that growth in traffic.
Where is the long-awaited consultation paper on land use planning that was promised in the White Paper and foreshadowed originally before the election? Labour has been in office for 20 months and we still have no guidance as to how to improve land use planning. I put it to the Minister that that is the hardest nut to crack. We will look positively at any proposals that he might produce—but, as yet, there are none.
How is improved land use planning consistent with the Government's strategy to build 2 million new homes on green-field sites by 2016—each one a pretty little box with a double garage? It is ridiculous to suggest that so much green-field development is consistent with reducing traffic growth. We need to divert traffic to more suitable places. I recently drove down the A3 to Winchester.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Portsmouth.
Mr. Jenkin: I beg your pardon—I did reach the correct destination. There is a dual carriageway virtually all the way to Hindhead, a single carriageway through Hindhead and then a dual carriageway again. It is not rational to have no bypass around Hindhead, but the Government do

253
not have the money to build one. They are presenting their transport policy as rational when it has clearly been screwed by the Treasury.
Privatisation presented huge opportunities to develop alternatives to the car, such as rail transport. For example, English, Welsh and Scottish Railway Ltd. plans to treble the number of rail freight movements in the next 10 years. There is huge investment in Railtrack. However, we need new investment in roads as well, and the roads system must be managed better.
The environment must be a prime concern when formulating transport policy. If we are to protect the environment, we must also protect economic growth. The White Paper raised great hopes, which have now been dashed. Those involved in commenting on and formulating transport policy—that is a great many people—are extremely disappointed by the dithering, delay and endless consultation that is the Government's excuse for inaction.
The Government have no authority. There is no transport legislation in the Queen's Speech. All we have had are cuts in the roads programme which will increase congestion and pollution, and at the next general election, voters will judge the Government's transport policy on whether it achieves cuts in pollution and congestion.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The debate initiated by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) has addressed an issue that is at the heart of the Government's policies to tackle traffic congestion and pollution. His concerns that the Government are backtracking on our commitments are completely unfounded. I wish that he would spend more time considering all the actions that the Government are taking rather than resorting to extraordinarily detailed textual analysis designed to try to prove that there might be some possibility of backtracking. I assure him that there is not. Our objectives are unchanged.
The Government's recent White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", makes it clear that we need to do more than just reduce the rate of traffic growth. Where the problems of pollution and congestion are greatest, we need to achieve an absolute reduction in traffic levels. More importantly, we are making good progress in implementing the policies necessary to deliver on our promises.
Mr. Brake: I want to be absolutely clear on this point. I want the Minister to put on record whether the Government's policy is to achieve an overall, absolute reduction in traffic. Yes or no?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman ought to contain himself. I am trying to answer several questions that he gave me notice of and asked in his speech. I have just said clearly that we do not regard a reduction in the growth of traffic as sufficient. I have stressed that in areas that have serious congestion and pollution problems, we must achieve traffic reduction.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that in other areas of the country—some of them are represented by his hon. Friends—there is no need to achieve traffic reduction because vehicles are not causing serious pollution.
254
There are rural areas where that is the case, where the motor car is a lifeline and where there is no great environmental or other reason for pursuing traffic reduction. There is a need to tackle the serious congestion and pollution problems in cities, and that will be at the forefront of the Government's policy.
It is right to have regional and local strategies rather than blanket policies at a national level which are not sensitive to local considerations. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to recognise the importance of well-developed local transport plans, worked out by local authorities and local communities in response to the specific needs of their area. That is precisely what we are seeking to encourage.
In our first 18 months in office, we have published and taken significant steps to implement the first comprehensive White Paper on transport policy for more than 20 years. It is the first White Paper to integrate transport policies with other key related policies on the environment, land use planning and health. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) complained, on the one hand, about us producing too many consultation papers and, on the other, that we have not yet published a consultation paper on the changes to PPG3. I have to tell him that changes to PPG3 will be announced shortly. The Government take that matter seriously and recognise the need for integration of land use, transport and environmental policies. We created the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to achieve that integration.
We have also secured in the comprehensive spending review the means to deliver our integrated transport strategy with an extra £1.8 billion over three years for public transport, traffic management and road maintenance.
The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that doing nothing is not an option. Congestion is costing our country billions of pounds a year. The Department's 1997 road traffic forecasts made clear the scale of the future challenges that we would face without the Government's policy changes. Traffic was forecast to increase by more than a third over the next 20 years. That would seriously undermine our ability to achieve our legally binding Kyoto targets on CO, reduction. It would also set back action to tackle local air quality and the adverse impacts on people's health of the way in which we travel. It would lead to significant worsening in congestion.
We must not forget the three in 10 households that have no access to a car. They are totally reliant on other forms of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking.
Our policies aim to encourage more responsible car use and to extend the choices available to all groups in society. The White Paper sets out how we will achieve that.
The Deputy Prime Minister said last year that we want to be held to account for our achievements in reducing car journeys. That position has not changed. The White Paper promises that we will report on the success of the new deal. The two recent road traffic reduction Acts provide a specific framework for reporting progress in tackling road traffic and its impacts at local and national level.
Our policies will encourage people to drive less and to walk, cycle and use public transport more. They fully address all the recommendations of Sir Donald Acheson

255
on mobility, transport and pollution, to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred. Our approach is based on integrated policies with action at national, regional, local and individual level to deliver the reductions in traffic that we need.
I want briefly to highlight some of the key policies that we are implementing which will make a difference. The first is local transport plans. Delivery of our objectives depends, to a large extent, on action at a local level to tackle local needs. That is why the new five-year local authority local transport plans are at the heart of the new deal. They will be comprehensive, integrated transport strategies. They will contain measures to co-ordinate and improve local transport provision to tackle congestion and pollution, and support economic development in urban and rural areas.
London boroughs will have to produce local implementation plans giving effect to the mayor's integrated transport strategy for London. Production of the strategy will be a key priority for the mayor in his or her first few months in office.
We are providing authorities with the additional resources to do the job. We have secured an additional £700 million over the next three years for the implementation of local transport plans. We are removing unnecessary constraints on how local authorities can spend the money allocated to them.
We published draft guidance on local transport plans on 12 November. We are encouraging authorities to set targets so that we and they can judge performance. Clearly, if targets for road traffic reduction are to have any meaning, they need to be considered in the context of local transport strategies setting out how traffic growth can be tackled. We are, therefore, implementing the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 in step with implementation of local transport plans.
We have listened to the concerns of local authorities about the time scale for the preparation of robust plans. We have asked for provisional plans by the end of next July and full five-year plans in 2000. Authorities will submit their statutory traffic reduction reports as part of the first full local transport plans in 2000 and produce non-statutory interim reports as part of their provisional plans. That phased implementation will enable a greater degree of standardisation to be achieved in the local measurement of existing traffic levels and forecasts so
256
that the national implications can be assessed. As I am sure the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will recognise, it is critical that there is a standard approach so that we do not have varying figures for different areas which are difficult to co-ordinate.
We shall give local authorities important new powers to allow them to charge road users or to introduce new charges on workplace parking as part of the package of measures in their local transport plan. In London, it will be for the mayor to consider the role of such measures as part of the integrated transport strategy. We propose to give powers to the boroughs as well as the mayor, but borough powers would need to be exercised in line with the mayor's strategy.
The Greater London Authority Bill, published last week, includes the necessary powers to enable such charges to be introduced in London. We are committed to the introduction of those powers nationwide. Yesterday, we published a consultation document seeking views on the details of how such schemes might operate.
Revenues raised will be used locally to benefit transport serving the area where charges apply. Investment in improving the alternatives will be critical to the success of schemes in reducing traffic.
To tackle road traffic growth, we need to widen the choices available for those who have a car and those who do not, so we are improving the alternatives to the car. Public transport is crucial but so, too, is the need to encourage walking and cycling, and that is on the Government's agenda.
I want to address the question of national road traffic targets. The Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998, which became law in July, requires the Government to report on the case for national targets for road traffic. The Government must also publish further reports on progress in reducing the impact of road traffic and towards any targets set. We have said repeatedly that we will produce our first report on the case for targets by the end of next year. That is an entirely reasonable time scale given the analysis that we need to undertake. I referred to the preparation and co-ordination of local plans. We need that analysis to assess the impact of the new deal's measures on traffic.
We have also set challenging targets on, for example, CO, emissions, air quality, cycling and road safety—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

North-West Region
11 am
Ms Hazel Blears: I am delighted to have been successful in the ballot for today's debates and to see so many colleagues here. We are about to debate a subject that is of tremendous importance not only to those of us who represent the north-west in Parliament but to the country as a whole, because the north-west is such an important region, economically and culturally.
The north-west has the second largest economy in the United Kingdom. It is one of the most densely populated areas—5.5 million people live in Lancashire, Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. We have 140,000 businesses and currently benefit from £370 million from the European structural funds, which we would like very much to keep. We also have £375 million from the single regeneration budget challenge fund.
Although manufacturing has declined in recent years, it is still a major source of output and jobs in the north-west. It accounts for 27 per cent. of the north-west's output and 22 per cent. of its employment. Our manufacturing is concentrated in four main sectors: chemicals, textiles and clothing, food products and engineering and, of course, the very important aerospace industry.
Manufacturing has been hard hit in recent months, which is why it is so important that the regional development agency should begin its work of drawing investment into the region, preparing its business plan, setting up strategic sites, and working with the regional chamber of commerce and all the local authorities.
Time and again, it has been shown that partnership is the key to economic success and to social regeneration. In the north-west, we have a tremendous record of working together to achieve results. In Greater Manchester, the city pride project involves Manchester, Salford, Trafford and Tameside working together to regenerate the city-centre core. MIDAS, the new Manchester investment development agency service, is drawing jobs and opportunities into the area. We are all working together to bring the Commonwealth games to the region, which would be of enormous benefit economically.
Some regions say that they do not feel close-knit or that they do not have a real affinity with their neighbours. That is certainly not the case in the north-west, where we share our history, language, literature, geography and, I believe, our sense of humour. That is why the north-west needs a voice as a region. I want a democratically elected regional government to shape and focus our growth and development, bringing decision making closer to the people and the communities that we serve.
Mr. Nigel Evans: How many letters has the hon. Lady received asking for an elected authority for the north-west?
Ms Blears: We have been consulting the communities, and many say that they want decisions to be made at a local level. The hon. Gentleman might be in favour of remote government, but I am sure that that is not popular in his area.
I was talking about being closer to the people, and I want to say a little more about what is happening to regenerate my city of Salford, which is becoming more
258
exciting by the day. The past 20 years have not been especially happy for Salford and its people. We based our economy to a large extent on manufacturing and full-time, high-quality jobs, but the Tories put paid to all that.
We had two devastating recessions which decimated manufacturing and knocked the heart out of many local people. However, in the 18 months since the Labour Government were elected, we have begun to see a revival in the city's fortunes—a new beginning. I hesitate to say that there is a Salford renaissance, but that is how it is beginning to feel.
We have an education action zone and a health action zone, and we have pathway status for our regeneration projects. I shall give a couple of examples of local partnerships working on the ground—real regeneration from the bottom up. Just last week, we submitted the action plan for the regeneration of Seedley and Langworthy, one of the most difficult communities in Salford. The bid was for £25 million for the city as a whole but focused on that particular area. The bid contains some genuine innovations which could inform regeneration projects on a wider scale.
One proposal is for a community housing company, whereby local people decide on the design, management and lettings of property and have a stake in the growth of the community. Another proposal is for a community trust, again led by local people, which will be an agent to draw in funds and resources from the new deal, Europe and elsewhere to provide jobs and opportunities.
Most exciting of all, there is to be a community financial institution. Banks and building societies have withdrawn completely from the inner cities, so there is very little access to financial services in those areas. We are to have our own community financial institution—a people's bank, if you like—which will provide loans and start-up grants to local businesses and bring financial opportunities back to the inner city. That is what sustainable improvement is all about. It is not about being here today and gone tomorrow; it means improvement, week by week and month by month, changing and growing, so that once again the community becomes strong, self-confident, vibrant and caring—somewhere where people are proud to live and where they want to bring up their families.
We need to tackle the problems of private rented property and absentee landlords who do not have a stake in the community. I want the Government to examine the regulation and licensing of private landlords to make sure that they meet their social responsibilities to the communities in which they have property.
We have to invest in community capacity. We have various regeneration projects, but we are asking the same group of local people to get involved. People have their own lives, families and jobs, which makes it difficult for them to participate in a range of projects, so we need to glean the necessary skills and talents from a wider group of people.
We need real, joined-up government. We have all the various initiatives, but we cannot have people spending time on administration and bureaucracy only to find that they are bidding against each other for funds. We have to ensure that the different initiatives mesh and integrate. We shall then have the opportunity to show that we can provide the best value for the extra money that we invest and can renew the fabric of the communities forgotten by the Tories.

259
I shall highlight a couple of other local projects, the first being the development of the Lowry centre in Salford. It is the national landmark millennium project for the arts, involving £127 million of investment. It is unique in bringing together funding from the national lottery, the Millennium Commission and Europe—a real partnership which, in 2000, will deliver the most wonderful, breathtaking cultural centre anywhere in Britain.
Just last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport topped out the centre with the final golden bolt. He was awe-struck, not only by the building itself, but by the concept of bringing together a performance space for large productions—there is seating for 1,750 people—a flexible studio theatre, galleries for Lowry's paintings, a digital world centre, and a centre for virtual reality linked with the university. The final accolade was the receipt of £2 million in sponsorship from Electronic Data Services, a major information technology employer. That is initiative and enterprise.
I pay tribute to Salford city council, which had the ability and vision and was prepared to risk taking the project forward. The best return on that risk will be the fact that local people, especially children and the young, will be able to take part in, enjoy and appreciate performance and art. Salford is packed with creativity and talent. At long last, we have a Government who recognise that and want it to flourish.
Our examples of regeneration are quite breathtaking. Salford Quays now employs more than 7,000 people, more than when the docks were operating at their height in the 1950s and 1960s. The latest development is Century 105, the north-west's newest commercial radio station, which is investing £2.5 million in a high-tech studio and creating more than 50 jobs. The metrolink extension goes through Salford Quays into Eccles. There is a major project with English Partnerships to regenerate Chapel street, which is the main A6 corridor into the city.
Only last week, we announced the building of the only five-star hotel in the region, which will bring jobs for local people. We are also examining the possibility of a popular music centre in the Chapel street area to build on the creativity and talent of local people. There is also a housing and leisure development at the old hospital site. There is a huge development at Chapel wharf with the Calatrava bridge, which has won international awards, and 2,200 staff are based at the new Inland Revenue headquarters.
In fact, some £875 million of capital investment, public and private, is planned for Salford over the next five years. That could support up to 35,000 local jobs. To cap it all, there is an application to build a snowdome in Salford—who would have thought there would be skiing in Salford? It is hard to believe, but it is true. That, too, will provide jobs and opportunities for local people.
A few weeks ago, some out-of-date research was published. It compared Salford to the Titanic, alleging that people were leaving the city and abandoning ship. That research is nine years old—from the depths of the third Tory term, when our city was at its lowest. Today, nothing could be further from the truth. The city is becoming an exciting and vibrant place in which to live and work.
I do not have time to say everything that I want because many colleagues want to speak, but I shall say this: north-west Members are a force to be reckoned with.
260
We shall be working together for our region and the people whom we are here to represent. We shall be ensuring that the north-west's voice is heard at the very heart of government. We know that our Government want to encourage regeneration; we have made a wonderful start. We will be watching very closely to ensure that that regeneration continues, for the benefit of north-west people.
11.11 am
Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to be called so early in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on the enthusiastic way in which she gave a one-person commercial for Manchester and Salford. Judging by the number of her hon. Friends who surround her, I am sure that she would be the first to admit that the north-west does not comprise only Manchester and Salford. Although she is brimming with the natural enthusiasm of a new Member under a new Government, I respectfully remind her that the development in Salford Quays, together with many regeneration projects in Liverpool, Trafford Park, other parts of Manchester and all over the north-west, began under the previous Conservative Government.
I must also remind the hon. Lady that the previous Conservative Government introduced a broad-scale scheme known as city challenge, in which we provided money on a co-ordinated basis to places such as Blackburn. Her rather selective retailing of what is happening now does not properly reflect some of the measures that we undertook when in government. I would be the first to admit that I wish that we had done more. I do not think that there is a party difference between us on the need to invest more resources in dealing with the many problems in inner cities and urban parts of the north-west, although the hon. Lady perhaps gave the impression that the previous Government did nothing.
It is a little rich for the hon. Lady to talk about economic and industrial matters without mentioning the burdens with which north-west industry has had to cope since this Government came to power: high interest rates, a high pound, pressures on manufacturing industry, the advent of things such as the social charter, and so on. I shall not dwell too long on those matters. Suffice it to say that the idea that the north-west and its business suddenly hit calm, tranquil waters on 1 May 1997 is a travesty.
I would not necessarily have expected the hon. Lady, who advocated the benefits of Manchester and Salford, to mention the north-west's most important industry: aerospace. [Horn. MEMBERS: "She did."] I apologise if she did; perhaps she did not go into it in quite as much detail as I should like to. Aerospace is one of this country's most dynamic industries. It underwent a difficult period in the early 1990s, but is now working positively for the future.
The hon. Lady will be aware of British Aerospace, the importance of civil aviation to the north-west's economy and the generation and development of civil aviation through new technology. When I asked the Minister for Energy and Industry at Question Time last week for a straightforward answer to a question about the civil aviation research and demonstration programme, which brings £20 million to bear on seedcorn development, all I heard was rubbish. So interested was the Minister in giving me a sensible answer that all he could say was, "We are doing more than you were doing."

261
I wanted an answer to that question because the programme represented the seedcorn funding for much of the work that developed the airbus wing. The hon. Member for Salford will know the importance of the airbus wing to British Aerospace's work. I hope that the Minister will give a straightforward answer on the Government's intentions. Without such technological development and such a lead, many of the hon. Lady aspirations for the north-west economy will not be fulfilled. I should like assurances on the matter.
Mr. Phil Woolas (Oldham, East and Saddleworth): In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the north-west business community, does he recognise the strong—indeed, unanimous—support among north-west businesses for the region's submission on regional government? Have not businesses throughout our region been strongly supportive of the creation of a regional development agency because they recognise the role that such an agency can play in the regeneration of our communities?
Mr. Jack: From the companies to which I have talked, I do not sense a great deal of enthusiasm about this issue—but then business is pragmatic: it would not turn up its nose at new channels through which resources can be directed for the benefit of the north-west. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating—when RDAs start their work. There are some problems on the horizon. There will be tremendous competition between RDAs for every one to be a winner and a success. They will also face competition from a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. They will be hard pressed to match some of the successes of regional appeals which the previous Government were able to deliver.
Will the Minister reassure me that one of the most crucial factors in ensuring that technologies in the north-west aerospace industry remain at the forefront for the benefit of its regeneration is FOAS—future offensive air systems? A great deal of work is being undertaken in some new technology development at the margin—unique in this country, and, in fact, in Europe. Without continuing Government support for such programmes, which the UK and French aerospace industries are exploring, our north-west industry will not be able to remain at the forefront of technology. It is important that the Government reassure us that they recognise that, because the north-west aerospace industry accounts for 40,000 jobs.
Last week, there was a debate on seaside towns, of which the north-west has quite a few. One of the most important is Blackpool. Since we are debating matters connected with regeneration, I should like an answer from the Minister to a question that has been bothering me.
One factor that might be inhibiting further development of the Blackpool and Fylde coast is the blight that has hung over the area for some time as a result of North West Water's inability to achieve recognition of its meeting the European Community bathing water directive standards.
In late September, the Minister for the Environment made some pretty strong comments, amplifying some of the problems and ignoring work to be undertaken as a result of the investment of a further £100 million by North West Water in projects approved by the Environment Agency to enable the waters to meet the bathing water
262
standards, so removing a blight from the Fylde coast and sending the signal that it is a good place for a family holiday. Which schemes does the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning support and believe will do the business for the north-west's principal tourist location? It is easy for the Minister for the Environment to rubbish the Fylde coast at the Labour party conference. The damage to a very important part of the north-west economy caused by such ill-considered comment is serious and must be addressed in today's debate.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): My right hon. Friend will doubtless recall how keen the Labour party was to stop holding its party conferences in Blackpool, which has had a serious effect on Blackpool.
Mr. Jack: Indeed. My hon. Friend will be aware that a new private sector partner has bought the facilities, including the Winter Gardens. The fact that more money will be invested will be a testimony to private enterprise, but it will also be a test of the Labour party—will it be prepared to back Blackpool again when the new facilities are installed?
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, at the end of the 1980s, when North West Water said that it did not consider further treatment of sewage on the Fylde coast necessary, and said that it would simply build a longer outfall pipe to put still-polluted sewage into the sea, Lancashire county council fought a major campaign, supported by the European Commission? As a result, treatment is starting to be implemented on the Fylde coast. That programme is not yet complete, and tertiary treatment may be required, but does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he, and the Government of whom he was a member, refused to accept that any further treatment of sewage was necessary on the Blackpool coast?
Mr. Jack: In a spirit of reckless generosity, I was hoping to agree with some of what the hon. Lady said, because, as leader of Lancashire county council, she was a doughty fighter for an important development on the Fylde coast. I would fall out with her only on the last part of her intervention, because she is right, in a sense. All of us, on both sides of the political spectrum, had to battle with North West Water to persuade it that the long sewage outfall was not the answer. I remember that we won that battle, but that progress could not have been made had we not privatised the water industry. We occasioned £500 million of investment—now £600 million—to deliver the systems which, I hope, will lead to a solution for the Fylde coast.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: In fact, the Select Committee on the Environment went to Fleetwood to consider the argument made by Lancashire county council, and held an evidence session on that at Rossall point. The Government changed their opinion on long sea outfalls for the whole country as a result of that inquiry and the campaign that had been fought.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman bears out my point that the success in getting that investment made was the sum total of the parts. The former leader of Lancashire county council may be distorting history slightly in taking all the credit.

263
I shall now talk about the transport infrastructure in the north-west of England. Although it is absolutely right to explore every opportunity to make the best use of all modes of transport and, whenever possible, to move freight on to the rail system and to develop our rail system, all that the hon. Member for Salford hoped for for the north-west may be more difficult to achieve if the Government do not seriously consider the condition of the M6. To suggest that the Birmingham northern relief road will solve all the problems of that vital transport corridor is to ignore reality.
Some people suppose that our position on the western side of the United Kingdom, when the majority of our export business goes to Europe, puts us at the wrong side of the country. We must not give the impression abroad that we are in any way cut off because the M6 is becoming an almost intolerable route. That would be the worst thing that we could do. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning smiles, but those who use that motorway know that it is a nightmare road at times. I hate to think of the environmental damage being done by vehicles stuck in endless queues on that motorway, and of the loss of business time because the capacity of the system is not big enough and there are no plans to develop relief for some of the pinch points.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): I could not agree more with the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but why, under the Administration of whom he was a member, was there no investment in the west coast main line or—more important, and more relevant to the specific point that he is making—in rolling stock for the freight industry? Ludicrously, we are still in the situation that we inherited from his Administration: V6 engines leaving a very successful Vauxhall plant in Ellesmere Port are being exported to Europe by road because his Administration left no rolling stock for the freight industry.
Mr. Jack: In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, sadly, the investment that should have been made in the west coast main line depended on the tilting train working, and it did not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I always try to be fair. If there is a fault, those of us who were part of the previous Government should acknowledge that. However, because the tilting train did not work, all the railway investment went to the east coast main line.
Yes, there may well have been a dearth of investment in freight, but we should consider the progress that English, Welsh and Scottish Railway, the new freight company, is making in its purchase of 300 locomotives and new specialist facilities. Had freight services remained nationalised, none of that investment would have been possible. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to acknowledge the benefits that have already flowed to the north-west economy—its routeways and roads—as a result of the transfers to rail freight that EWS is making. The Conservatives set the industry free.
I do not want to go into details, but I hope that, when the Minister reflects on the debate, he will not forget the Importance to the region of agriculture, especially horticulture. The horticulture industry still employs a
264
large number of people. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Lord Donoughue, read the comments regularly made in Grower magazine, he would understand why the Government have a poor reputation in the horticulture industry. It is time that the Government developed a proper strategy for the development of the industry, because it is vital to the north-west.
I close on a point about the human capital of the north-west—its people, whose ability or otherwise to make an economic contribution reflects the condition of our health services. At present, a small group of people is inhibited from making its contribution to the economy because of the poor state of renal services in the Royal Preston hospital. I should like the Minister to convey to his friends in the Department of Health my earnest wish that the work being undertaken by the Department of Health and by Sir Leslie Turnberg in a review of regional services—including renal services—in Lancashire, will gel together to enable an early decision to be taken on the need to expand renal services in Preston. The people who are affected by the current pressures on those services might be able to make a better contribution to the north-west economy if decisions were taken on the expansion of those services.
I hope that I have been able to paint a broader picture of the north-west economy, drawing attention to some of the challenges that must be met by hon. Members and Ministers if we are all to ensure that the north-west region, which we represent in the House, prospers in future.
11.28 am
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on securing the debate. I shall persuade my wife to read her speech in Hansard. Perhaps she will then stop pestering me to take her to Paris, and instead we shall nip down the East Lancashire road and visit Salford. It would be an awful lot cheaper.
Undoubtedly, after years of neglect of the north-west, there is now a steady overall improvement, which is continuing, despite the trading difficulties experienced by much of manufacturing industry. I welcome the strides that the Government have taken, but I shall draw attention to many issues that should be addressed to allow the momentum of economic improvements to gather pace.
One of the things that most irritates me as I look back on the past 20 years is the tendency of Government in London to regard deprivation and social exclusion as primarily a matter to be addressed in the inner cities. Deprivation and social exclusion also exist in smaller towns—those that have lost traditional industries, such as textiles, or suffer from levels of disadvantage similar to those of inner Liverpool or inner Manchester.
Towns such as Barrow, Burnley, Preston, Rochdale, no doubt Ellesmere Port, and Skelmersdale in my constituency do not receive the automatic attention that they deserve. It is true also, as the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, that the incidence of social exclusion and economic failure in rural areas is not negligible. Systems to tackle that difficulty are only just being devised.
It is important to remember that Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria are predominantly rural areas and that they are about to lose their objective 5b status. Skelmersdale

265
is a town of about 45,000 people. It experienced some of the most violent effects of recession during the Tory years. In recent months, the tide seems to have turned for the town. Unemployment, which was more than 13 per cent. when the Tories left office, is now down to 8.7 per cent. However, that is still twice the national figure.
The economy in Skelmersdale is becoming more exciting and stimulating. New businesses are moving in to the extent that we have run out of industrial and commercial business land. Investment in Skelmersdale is growing rapidly and that is due to three factors. First, it is due to regional selective assistance and assisted area status. Secondly, the local partnerships that have been formed have been tremendously successful, largely thanks to the energy and intelligence of West Lancashire district council, in this context at least. These are the partnerships between businesses, public agencies, community groups and the county council. Thirdly, there is the expansionist mood of several key industries in the town, to which I shall refer.
Assisted area status as we know it is up for significant change, and Skelmersdale is in danger of losing it. Most of west Lancashire is in the Liverpool travel-to-work area; it is on the northern edge of Merseyside. Many workers move in and out of Merseyside and Skelmersdale for their work, which makes more sense as their travel-to-work area than a Lancashire countywide area would. To use different criteria for designating assisted area status for Skelmersdale would damage a town that has, as I have said, twice the national rate of unemployment. It would damage also the local partnerships which have hitherto been very successful in attracting continuing investment into the new town.
Other problems have been created by the way in which Department of Trade and Industry grants have been used to underpin foreign investments in some new plant in the region. We all welcome such new investment in the region, but it seems foolish to put taxpayers' money into, for example, a new paper mill in Trafford Park. I wish no harm to Trafford Park and its development. However, A and M Paper in Skelmersdale has invested huge amounts of its own money in expansion in the town, and Kimberly-Clark has similarly put massive investment into a paper mill in Barrow, and each of those indigenous firms will find themselves in regional competition from heavily subsidised rivals.
The same is true of a firm called Europanel in my constituency, which makes Contiboard. It faces competition from a Portuguese firm, Sonae, which has been subsidised to move an identical factory in Kirkby, about four miles away. It will operate in a sector of production in the country that is already oversupplied. I know that the DTI is not the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, but in my view the DTI should tighten up on those investments, and I hope that that will be a function of the regional development agency in the near future.
The north-west is one of the country's premier agricultural areas. Two thirds of the region is rural. It is the region that was most damaged by the BSE tragedy. Cheshire and Cumbria—particularly Cumbria—were hard hit by it. Similarly, Lancashire has many pig, poultry and egg producers. They are again in deep recession. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has had some remarkable successes in Europe and in his negotiations with British retailers, all of which have
266
been deeply appreciated by the agricultural community in the north-west. However, the depression in the industry is still with us. It spreads outwards to have an effect on rural life generally in the region and it is unlikely to be resolved for some months.
Each of the factors to which I have referred adds up to a compelling case for the RDAs to get cracking as soon as possible and for the Government to start planning for full-blown regional elected government. The RDA must get a grip, perhaps sector by sector rather than area by area, of the strategic planning for the north-west. That would help us avoid unhelpful decisions about the assisted area map or about DTI grants, which can damp down regeneration in the north-west's most disadvantaged areas.
Equally, the RDA must, as a matter of urgency, tackle the region's transport infrastructure. I agree absolutely with what the right hon. Member for Fylde said about the M6, through Lancashire particularly, and about the west coast main line. It is clear that the mixture of private rail and coach companies is entirely unable to sort out transport in the region. That must be a job for the RDA.
In my view, the RDA must impose on itself a rural filter. A rural representative on the board is not enough—indeed, it might be counter-productive. Every decision that the RDA makes should be viewed in the context of how it enhances or diminishes the lives of people on low incomes, especially those living in rural areas, as well as how it enhances or diminishes the rural environment.
Above all, the RDA must reflect all the region. It will be too easy for it to be dominated by Manchester. I say that with all due respect to Manchester, which has a lot of muscle. I accept that it would be strange if it did not use that muscle. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider closely the composition of the board to ensure that it properly reflects the entire region. I hope also that in the not-too-distant future we shall start examining regional representation in the new House of Lords, further to strengthen the north-west in that place.
Finally, I suggest to the Minister, who I know has his heart in the regions and in regional development, that he will receive huge support from the 64 Members of the north-west parliamentary Labour party in his work towards the development of RDAs and regional government. The Opposition have been making many noises recently about the terrors of our moving towards a Europe of the regions. Speaking for myself, I would positively welcome such a move. I think that there are tremendous advantages in the regional structures that our European partners have and of which we are deprived. I look forward to the strengthening of those structures in the not-too-distant future.
11.38 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I am grateful to be able to contribute to the debate. I must offer congratulations to the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears). The hon. Lady has not quite persuaded me that Salford is a tourist destination, but she has done very well as a start.
My constituency is tucked in the extreme south-east corner of the north-west region. However, I assure the House that there is a strong sense of identity and community over the issues that affect the whole region.
It is perhaps worth emphasising briefly the context in which the region finds itself and what has happened to it over the past two decades. If we are considering the coal

267
industry, the steel industry, the textile industry or even investment in the rail industry, we must recognise some of the difficulties that have had to be overcome and some of the wounds and bruises that have been left on the regional economy. It is perhaps no surprise that within that context, there have been major population shifts and changes. A recent estimate is that the population of Merseyside is set to decline by about 10 per cent. and that of Greater Manchester by 2 per cent. in the next census period.
At the same time, as the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) has said, our connection to Europe has become more and more important. Therefore, I shall devote the rest of my contribution to examining how we might exploit and develop that connection and how we might heal the wounds and bruises to which I have referred. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) intervened to ask how many letters had been received about an elected regional development agency. I have received the same number of letters about that as I have about the setting up of single regeneration budgets. Stockport council has sought vigorously to participate in the SRB process, but—like many other public bodies and institutions in the north-west—has become snagged in a nightmare bidding regime. That is an inheritance from the previous Government that I hope that this Government will get rid of as quickly as possible.
Stockport made bids in three consecutive years and spent more than £100,000 on bids that were unsuccessful. We have now got some single regeneration budget money and we are grateful for it. However, when the council submitted in priority order the 27 projects for the reduction of class sizes that it believed should be supported by the Department for Education and Employment, the Department took no notice of the council, its education experts and the head teachers, allotting the money apparently on the random rolling of the dice. That is another example of the bidding system failing to support investment in the north-west in the most appropriate and targeted way.
The citizens of Stockport contribute £30 million a year to the national lottery, but they do not receive anything like that—
Mr. Simon Burns: It's a lottery.
Mr. Stunell: They do not receive that amount in prizes or projects. The national lottery receives 20 bids for every one that is successful. We should end the bid culture and bring back to our region the responsibility for taking decisions about spending resources.
The Liberal Democrats are very pleased that we are to have a single regional development agency for the north-west. Regional accountability is important, and we want to see the development of an overall economic strategy for the north-west. Is the Minister yet able to announce the membership of the RDA? We expected to learn that in October, but we have not yet done so. The RDA must swing quickly into action, but how will it be linked to the training and enterprise councils? We need to consider carefully how to develop training in the north-west. I remind the Government that if we seek successful models of regional development, both Spain
268
and Germany provide excellent examples. Strong, democratic and locally accountable regional bodies are the source and the essence of their success. Will the Government think again about democratic accountability for the RDA?
We need two sorts of infrastructure for success in the north-west. We need what I call software infrastructure, including democracy and devolution on the one hand and enhanced training and education on the other. Investment on a grand scale in the hardware infrastructure is important, but so is investment in the software infrastructure. In other European countries, democracy and devolution enhance the value of spending and investment in the public and private sectors. Training and education are also important and the north-west has an enviable reputation for the development of engineering skills. Indeed, Hazel Grove is the birthplace of Fred Williams, the co-inventor of the first functioning computer in the world, which was developed 50 years ago at Manchester university. Despite our innovative engineering skills, Microsoft and Sanyo are not based in this country, let alone in the north-west. We are not good at exploiting our assets.
We also need investment in hardware infrastructure. I support what other hon. Members have said about investment in the west coast main line, but I go further and ask the Minister for a quick decision on the application to start the Eurostar service from Manchester. The trains are sitting in the sidings and the company is ready to operate, but the Government decision remains long awaited. We also need confirmation that the channel tunnel rail link connection will be made on time, because rail freight and rail passenger services from the north-west to Europe will be crucial in the next decade. We also need local public transport infrastructure decisions.
At the conclusion of a previous Adjournment debate, the Minister boasted about the publication of a transport White Paper, but we need transport action. In Stockport and, especially, in Hazel Grove, the issue of access to Manchester airport will become crucial with the opening of the second runway. Passenger numbers will increase from 16 million a year to 30 million, but the infrastructure to cope with that increase is not in place.
The north-west offers a high quality of life to those who live there. It offers a high quality of environment to many, but not all, who live there. It also offers a good quality of economic activity to most of us who live there. For the future, we need to ensure that those benefits are extended to all. That will need this House, the regional development agency and the local authorities and councils to work together.
11.47 am
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): Over the past seven years, the public, private and voluntary sectors in the north-west have developed strategies on economic development, transport, training, innovation and the environment, working through the North-West Partnership and the North-West Regional Association. Now that the Government have appointed the regional development agency with executive authority to act, supported by the North-West regional chamber, we can move from developing those strategies piecemeal to a more focused effort to bring investment to the north-west. That will help to change the situation in which the north-west has one of

269
the lowest gross domestic products per head in the country and contains many urban deprived areas, including Liverpool, which ranks first for urban deprivation in England and Wales.
I wish to draw attention to a major opportunity that has arisen to develop trade in the port of Liverpool, the area that I represent, and the whole of the north-west. The Good Friday Irish peace agreement has opened up new opportunities to develop the growing trade between the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland and the north-west through the expanding port of Liverpool. It is part of an initiative to develop east-west trade, linking both parts of Ireland with the north-west and developing a corridor creating a gateway to northern and central Europe.
The development of a regional development agency, speaking for the north-west and with authority to act—working together with the north-south ministerial council to be set up in Ireland, the British-Irish Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly—means that we are now in a unique position to develop that expanding trade.
I was pleased to chair and help develop an important new trade group between the north-west and Ireland which met in the House of Commons three weeks ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and I held a meeting with the Irish Businesses and Employers Confederation, the Northern Ireland Confederation of British Industry, the Bank of England, the North-West chamber of commerce, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, the Warrington Project and other industrial and commercial groupings, together with the chairman designate of the RDA.
That group was set up to develop trade between Ireland, the north-west and northern Europe. It recognises the growth in trade between both parts of Ireland and the north-west, and the fact that 30 per cent. of goods from Ireland come to the United Kingdom. It also recognises that, in 1997, 2.5 million tonnes of freight passed between Liverpool and Ireland. That is part of the development of Liverpool and the expansion of trade and the generation of wealth there.
To develop that trade link between Ireland, the northwest and northern Europe we must look for opportunities to develop exports. We need to identify new markets by researching different sectors, to identify and remove barriers to trade and to consider policies for backing small and medium enterprises, both as part of this initiative and more generally.
We must consider investment in SMEs, the need for new technology and communications, investment in the west coast main line and in the Liverpool-to-Hull rail line, and the development of the port of Liverpool. We should also consider co-operation between education institutions.
Mr. Brady: Does the hon. Lady wish to pay tribute to the vital role of the abolition of the dock labour scheme in the development of the port of Liverpool, without which it could not have gone on to expand its trade in the way that she has described?
Mrs. Ellman: I am pleased to see increased investment in the port of Liverpool and the hard work being done there by all parties. I welcome that expansion. This initiative is an important part of developing trade and wealth in Liverpool while developing trade opportunities for businesses throughout the north-west.
270
The sectors already identified for the expansion of trade generate wealth and jobs and include the food and tourism sectors. In the north-west, tourism generates £1.5 billion and 200,000 jobs—6 per cent. of the north-west's work force. In Merseyside, 16,500 jobs are generated by tourism and £500 million is spent through tourism in that economy. This is a major opportunity for the expansion of tourism, as for other sectors of industry where research is required.
Mr. Jack: Does the hon. Lady agree that her last few remarks are a tribute to the work undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he took such a special interest in Merseyside and its problems?
Mrs. Ellman: The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made many promises, but delivered little. It is the hard work of the people of Liverpool and Merseyside, together with the investment that has been attracted, that is starting to turn the area round. We must not forget that Merseyside still has the lowest GDP per head in the whole of the United Kingdom, which signifies that we have a long way to go, despite new investment, major efforts and increasing prosperity.
The setting up of the north-west and Ireland trade group presents an excellent chance to focus on new opportunities. The North-West regional development agency provides an executive body which can support SMEs, trade and communications, and lobby for and attract further investment and training in the region.
I hope that all sectors will support this new initiative. I hope that the Minister, through his Department and in discussion with other Departments, will support it. It is about investment, communications and the generation of wealth and much-needed employment.
11.55 am
Mr. Graham Brady: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate and I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on securing it.
Listening to the contributions of Labour Members, I was disappointed that, so far, there has been no reference to the importance of education in regenerating the north-west. That is a special interest of mine on which I would like to spend a little time this morning.
The north-west has some fine schools, both state and independent. Manchester, in particular, has excellent independent schools—Manchester grammar, Manchester high and Withington girls' school, among others. But the tragedy is that in many parts of the north-west, the state education sector fails to live up to the standards which the people there have a right to expect.
Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that Cheshire has delivered a higher standard of education than Kent, despite Kent being full of grammar schools? Perhaps he could explain why that is so.
Mr. Brady: You would doubtless rightly call me to account for departing as far as Kent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman a little closer to home to my own borough of Trafford, where schools perform rather better than those in Cheshire, and

271
rather better than in any other part of the north-west. Last year, we had the best A-level results in the country and our secondary modern schools—not just our grammar schools—are achieving outstanding results. The hon. Gentleman may wish to consider the Ashton-on-Mersey school in my constituency, which the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has declared a beacon school—an example of how to educate our children in the north-west; a secondary modern school which is performing better than most comprehensive schools.
The hon. Gentleman may also care to consider the Jeff Joseph college in Sale, a city technology college, which is now recognised as being the most improved state school in the country over the past year, again, in a selective system, not a grammar school but a secondary school achieving fantastic results.
Labour Members would be wise to reflect, not on the ideology, but on what it is that achieves the highest standards in education in the north west. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) has grammar schools and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) is privileged to have Sale grammar school in his constituency. Many of us represent excellent schools which should be defended and protected. In the interests of our children in the north-west, we should be looking to spread that example, not only by maintaining the excellent schools that we already have in some parts of the north-west, but by trying to learn something from them.
One of the great missed opportunities of the early days of the new Government in the education sphere was that they tended to focus their activities on undermining the very best schools rather than trying to build up the bad schools which are letting down our children in many parts of the north west.
I come now to the economy and industrial relations. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) was gracious in her tribute to the previous Government for the abolition of the dock labour scheme. I think that the import of her remarks in reply to my intervention was that she recognised that the port of Liverpool could not have achieved any of the growth and expansion to which she alluded had the dock labour scheme still been in place.
Mrs. Ellman: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He draws the wrong inference from my comments.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out. I am deeply sorry to hear that I have drawn the wrong inference. Perhaps I was being too charitable to her. Apparently, she has missed the fact that the port of Liverpool could not have developed in the way in which it has without the abolition of the dock labour scheme. I hope that she will talk to those who run the port and ask them their views on that. I suspect that she will find that they agree with the inference that I chose to draw from her remarks.
Liverpool has been dogged by bad industrial relations performance—more, perhaps, by the perception of bad industrial relations on Merseyside—and that has to be tackled. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) suggested that there is a battle between Manchester and Liverpool. I would not want that,
272
although one thing that the regional development agency will have to address is long-standing rivalry between, not only those two great cities, but the other parts of the north-west. Cumbria, which never considered itself to be part of the north-west, has been brought into the same RDA zone, which will cause problems for the RDA.
It was slightly unfortunate that no hon. Member representing Liverpool gave true praise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: He is a pro-European.
Mr. Brady: My right hon. Friend is certainly a great supporter of the city of Liverpool and of Merseyside. If the hon. Gentleman visits Merseyside as often as I do, he will know that its people retain great affection for my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Jack: They talk of little else.
Mr. Brady: Very little else; my right hon. Friend is right to point that out. The people of Merseyside feel that there has been a void in the past 18 months, and they might like someone to fill that role.
The role that has been performed so ably by the development corporation—in Liverpool, as in other parts of the country—also deserves a mention. There was a rather sad aspect to the speech by the hon. Member for Salford. I have great affection for her, as she knows, and she spoke with great enthusiasm about Salford, Manchester and the north-west, but she was wrong to suggest that the investment to which she alluded—at some length—was all achieved by the new Government and to give so little credit to the previous Government for their important role in building the economy of the north-west so effectively.
In the same vein, reference was made to why investment in the west coast main line did not happen sooner. Labour Members should reflect on the fact that the massive investment in that line—and in trains, in which Virgin Trains is taking part—would not have happened had it not been for the privatisation of the rail network. Modernisation started some time ago, but, sadly, it will take a little while to achieve the benefits. I hope that the hon. Member for Salford, and her hon. and right hon. Friends, will not take all the credit when that happens. Investment by private companies, and achieved because of the freedoms that the previous Government gave to them, will bring enormous benefits to the north-west.
The north-west is a land of enormous opportunities. My constituency perhaps has greater good fortune than some other parts of the region. We have excellent education, a nice environment in which to live and a vibrant small-industry sector. I am also privileged to represent many of the people who make businesses work across much of Manchester and much of the north-west. They perform an important role.
What concerns me about the new Government's policies, proposals and approach to business and the economy is that, sadly, the whole thrust of their economic and employment policies will make the work of the people who I represent more difficult. It will make it harder for businesses to justify investment in their operations and to make a profit, increase the costs of

273
employing people and discourage investment and the creation of jobs. I fear that, in the coming years, the result will be more lost jobs and less investment in the region.
12.4 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on ensuring that the debate has taken place. It is funny that the Opposition do not seem to remember the 1980s for the decline of the north-west and the complete destruction of jobs and industry. The way of life in the north-west was totally threatened by the previous Government. We must look to the new millennium and to the new Government to ensure that the fortunes of the north-west are redressed and that the balance comes back to the north from the south.
The north-west has always been the engine room of the country and of the economy. It has stimulated the country and has always responded, as it will continue to do, but we must ensure that the north-west has a strong voice. That will come through the regional development agency. Some of us believe that it should be elected; that will come, when we have seen its worth.
The north-west will have to compete against the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It has to stand together and be united, and there is no better place to look than Lancashire, and what it has to offer. In Chorley, we have a former Royal Ordnance site with 800 acres of brown-field land ready for redevelopment and ready to play a crucial role. What better place is there than Chorley to host the headquarters of the new RDA'? It would be an ideal position, because it is central to the north-west.
We must not lose sight of that, and we must also remember that we have farming in Lancashire. Thankfully, the Government are addressing farming issues and ensuring that farmers will continue to farm in the north-west, which was the second most affected region because of bad management by the previous Government. The Government are addressing that. They will continue to do so, and they will continue to be supported.
The north-west Members of Parliament stood together against the decision to move to Wales the headquarters of 101 Battalion, the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. We will continue to fight that, because it would mean redundancies in the north-west. That is not acceptable.
We should be pleased that we have an important role to play in ensuring that the north-west has a main line link to Europe. We must not lose sight of that and we must stand together to ensure that we get a direct link—it is crucial. We want further investment in the west coast main line. Would not it be nice to see the InterCity trains that we lost in the early 1990s going back into Blackpool regularly? We do not want one-offs, but regular journeys that start at Blackpool.
We also want further investment. That will come from my hon. Friend the Minister, who believes in the north-west. He will support it and continue to ensure that we get a fair crack of the whip, which we failed to get under the previous Government.
Health is important, and there have been new challenges with the link-up of Chorley and South Ribble district general and Royal Preston hospitals in clinical services. That will create a better response and better
274
ability to treat people's needs. We must also remember that renal services are important. They were failed in the 18 years of the previous Government, but I believe that the Government will address that and will continue to do so quickly. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing this debate.
12.8 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the brief debate. I am not sure whether Walt Disney has heard of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—some of the stuff that came from him was complete fantasy. We should start concentrating on the great potential and opportunities that exist in the north-west, although there are distinct problems as well.
I refer the hon. Member for Chorley to the latest Confederation of British Industry report, which says that "considerable pessimism" still exists in the north-west. We rely a lot on manufacturing, and manufacturing jobs have declined in the past 18 months. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) talked about British Aerospace, which is vital as an engine for skilled defence jobs in the north-west. Hundreds of small businesses throughout the north-west feed into British Aerospace. There are skills in British Aerospace at Warton in my right hon. Friend's constituency and at Salmesbury in mine, and at Royal Ordnance in Chorley. There is a tremendous skill base, and we want it to increase.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) spoke about manufacturing jobs and the need to export, but we have high interest rates compared to the rest of Europe and a strong pound because of that. It is difficult for manufacturing industry in the north-west to get those new markets about which she spoke, because it has to compete with industries in the rest of Europe. It is a great shame that she does not take such opportunities to lobby Ministers and persuade them to produce different economic policies. I do not think that anyone would dispute the fact that we are in a recession created by Downing street. The problems faced by industries in the north-west are the Government's responsibility, because of their economic policies.
The hon. Lady's answer to the problem is an elected regional chamber. Does she really believe that the people of the north-west are clamouring for yet another elected body? Where will it all end? We have elections to Westminster, European parliamentary elections, county council elections, borough elections and parish elections, but she wants yet more elections. The Labour Government understand bureaucracy and red tape, but they do not understand business.
Mr. Woolas: When we have elections in the north-west, my side wins and the hon. Gentleman's side loses. That is why we like elections.
Mr. Evans: At least all the Lancashire Conservative MPs have turned up for the debate. After the next election, when we have another debate on the north-west,

275
many more Lancashire Conservative MPs will be sitting on the Government Benches, and the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will be sitting on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Brady: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that only 10 out of the 64 Labour MPs who represent the north-west are present? That is not a good performance.
Mr. Evans: I suspect that the others are busy putting advertisements in next year's Yellow Pages, so that they, too, can get another job.
Tourism is vital. As has been said, it is important for Manchester and Liverpool. I represent a rural constituency, 75 per cent. of which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. We want more tourism in the north-west, which could feed into Blackpool. It is a great shame that the new Labour Government's attitude to Blackpool is so snobbish. That seaside resort attracts many millions of people, and instead of slamming Blackpool, the north-west Labour MPs should have spoken up on its behalf.
I invited the Minister for the Environment to come swimming with me in the sea at Blackpool, such is my confidence. I make the same offer to the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, who may take it up when he winds up the debate. He could come up to Blackpool and we could have a nice little dip. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) referred to the Titanic. I do not know whether the Minister will float or sink, but I assure him that no harm will come to him from what is in the sea at Blackpool. That is proved time and again by the many millions of people who are not as snobbish as the new Labour Government and come to Blackpool in their droves.
Millions of pounds have been spent on the pleasure beach, which attracts tourists from Britain and Europe. Granada studios are in the north-west, so that will ensure that this clip is not on "North Westminster" on Sunday. We also have Alton towers. Many tourists come to the north-west, and we want tourism in the region to develop further.
Transport infrastructure has been mentioned time and again. We want new investment to alleviate the clogs and jams on the M6. Hon. Members who travel back to their constituency by road know that there is a problem. Publicity during the Labour party conference highlighted the severe problems with the trains. One of my constituents has written to me about her experiences. She travels every week between Preston and Euston, and told me that the majority of the trains are late. We need new investment in infrastructure to ensure that the north-west will survive and, as a result of regeneration, prosper into the future.
12.14 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome the debate. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), and, for a time, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who have listened to all or part of the debate.
276
I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on her enthusiastic opening speech, and on her obvious pride in the city of Salford. I enjoyed listening to her as she took us on a Cook's tour of the achievements in her constituency. I do not want to enter a sour note, but I thought that she was a trifle churlish in suggesting that this new Jerusalem began in the early hours of 2 May 1997. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde aptly pointed out, many of the measures that have led to the regeneration of Salford were introduced by the previous Government, but one would not expect to get that message from the comments of Labour Members.
Between 1979 and 1997, the previous Government's policies helped to secure record inward investment, not least in the north-west. During that period, inward investment in the north-west helped to create or to safeguard more than 80,000 jobs. Conservative policies brought Sony to Merseyside. In the teeth of opposition from the Labour party, our policies enabled BNFL to flourish: it is a major contributor to the economy of the north-west. The current Government's economic policies jeopardise the progress that has been made.
The Conservative regeneration strategy helped town and country alike. The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) referred to rural and agricultural life. The single regeneration budget combined into one pot 20 separate programmes previously operated by five different Departments, and provided a flexible fund for local regeneration. In the three years from 1995, the SRB provided some £4 billion, with more than £800 million from the challenge fund for new regeneration projects. The emphasis on competitive bidding ensured that funds were targeted on the schemes most likely to produce tangible results.
In 1994–99, the Merseyside objective 1 area has received more than £350 million in funding from the European regional development fund. Meanwhile, the Rural Development Commission and our rural challenge scheme promoted a range of programmes supporting economic and social regeneration in rural areas. We established the 230 business links across England, which provided one-stop training, advice and information centres for business. I hope that that puts the position into perspective, because these measures did not begin on 2 May 1997.
I do not have long, and I do not want to eat into the Minister's time, but I must pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde. He referred to the numerous regeneration projects in the region, and brought up the important subject of British Aerospace and the aerospace industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, who described the crucial role of education, which is a fundamental part of the regeneration of our cities, towns and rural areas. It is vital for people to have the proper education and training to be able to compete in and contribute to a highly competitive economic environment.
I am not sure how the Minister will respond to the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, tempting as some people may find it. My hon. Friend raised the important issue of tourism in the region. He also made a valid point, which I know Labour Members do not like hearing. Given that Labour Members have paid lip service to Blackpool, which featured prominently in the debate, why did their party kick the town in the teeth by deciding that it was not good enough

277
to host its conference every other year—although, presumably, it is good enough for other people to visit for their holidays? Clearly, Labour is not the servant of the people but the overclass, and the hotel and tourism facilities that Blackpool has to offer are not good enough for new Labour.
I fear that the threat posed by the Government's current economic policies—by relatively high interest rates, and the level of sterling—to manufacturing and other industry will hinder, rather than help, the further development of the north-west.
12.21 pm
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) for initiating the debate. She is a great champion of the north-west, and of Salford in particular. As many speakers observed today, she does justice to the region, and I have no doubt that, in the not too distant future, she will become a great agent for tourism.
The debate has featured a notable contrast between the constructive and the destructive. Hon. Members have suggested that we should adopt a constructive approach to the problems that we inherited from the last Government, implying that, during their 18 years in office, that Government did no damage to our economy. Other genuinely constructive suggestions have been made, however. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), for example, described efforts to promote trade with Ireland. I know that the chairman-elect of the regional development agency has been involved in those efforts. Others have referred to the need to ensure that the economy of the north-west is handled in the way that should be expected of a Labour Government, and to deal with the economic deficit that is the legacy of the last Government.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned the aerospace industry. There is no doubt that the industry is a jewel in the crown of British manufacturing, and the north-west has played its role. In the early 1990s, I chaired the Select Committee on Trade and Industry for four or five years. We produced two reports on aerospace, in which we pleaded with the Administration of the day to provide launch aid similar to that provided by our continental partners and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in America; but we did not get a dime out of that Administration. As the right hon. Gentleman will see from column 1036 of Hansard, he was told in a parliamentary answer on 3 December that the Government were investing up to £323 million in launch aid for the British aerospace industry.
Mr. Jack: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caborn: No.
That is in marked contrast to what was done by the last Administration. The same applies to economic regeneration. The last Administration dealt only with the symptoms, not with the cause. A classic example is provided by an interview with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about development corporations in the Financial Times. When the right hon. Gentleman, then President of the Board of Trade, was asked how he would control the corporations, he replied, "It is
278
very easy. For as long as I have a pot of gold on my desk, they will beat a path to my door." That is an example of the arrogance of centralised government—the wish not to devolve power to people so that they can find real, sustainable solutions to their problems, but to ensure that everything is dictated from the centre.
Throughout their 18 years in government, the Conservatives took powers from local authorities and partnerships, and domiciled them in Whitehall. This Government are dealing not just with the symptoms, but with the underlying problems that we have inherited. We are bringing together regional development agencies—which will be business led—and other partners, in the hope that they can deal with the fact that not one English region is now performing, in terms of gross domestic product per capita, as well as the European regions are on average. When it comes to wealth creation, that is the legacy of the last Administration.
We intend to tackle the problem. We shall do so by devolving real powers and resources to the regions, so that they can take a strategic overview of local problems—in this context, the problems of the north-west. The initiative has got off to a flying start with the appointment of Lord Thomas as chairman of the regional development agency in the north-west, and the appointment of a chief executive. We shall announce the membership of the boards in the next few days. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) suggested that we had said we would do so in October, but we did not have an Act of Parliament until November.
We want the partnership that we are establishing not just to address the economic deficit in the regions, but to develop further strategies with the regional chambers. Most of that will happen in the public sector, but we hope to build on partnerships in every region, particularly the north-west. The north-west has blazed a trail in establishing a partnership between the regional development agency and the regional chamber. At its inaugural meeting on 3 July, the chamber announced the constitution that would govern the partnership, which I understand has been signed by all those involved.
The regional chambers will play a role in strategic thinking that has not existed in the past, in regard to land use planning, spatial planning and the transport planning that was outlined in the White Paper announced some weeks ago by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. They will try to deal with, for instance, the problems of the west coast main line and the conurbations surrounding Birmingham, which will have a major impact on the ability of the north-west to transport, and import, goods and people. Such problems will be dealt with in a much more strategic way.
I assure Opposition Members that the proposals have been welcomed by all the stakeholders in the north-west. They may deride the role of the CBI, the chambers of commerce, regional branches of the TUC, local authorities and the community; but such derision explains why we have so many more Members of Parliament than the Opposition. We have listened to all those people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned the regeneration initiatives that have been used so effectively in Salford, which will no doubt continue to bring about sustainable development. This Government take seriously the need to provide resources and develop policies in a more holistic way to tackle regeneration problems in

279
the regions. Our new deal for communities commits £800 million over the next three years to dealing with some of the worst problems in 17 English estates. I acknowledge that, as has been pointed out, it was an advance on the part of the last Government to combine the spending power of four Departments, and make it effective in terms of delivery.
We have committed some £3.8 billion to regeneration, the bulk of which will be provided through the single regeneration budget. Eighty per cent. will be targeted on urban areas, and 20 per cent. on, in particular, rural areas. As some of my hon. Friends pointed out, two-thirds of the north-west is rural.
We will co-ordinate most of those policies in the middle of next year, when we publish our urban White Paper—the first for 20-odd years—and the rural White Paper, which will clarify the links between urban and rural areas. We believe that we are tackling the real, underlying problems of the north-west by launching partnerships. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford for instigating today's debate.

Housing Policy
12.29 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I am glad to have an opportunity to raise a matter that causes much concern throughout the country. It is a pleasure to see the Minister for London and Construction in his place. I hope that he will be as helpful as he normally is when answering in debates.
The public just do not believe that 4.4 million new houses need to be built between 1991 and 2016. They distrust the science of prediction. The Office for National Statistics says that it makes sensible predictions based on the facts that are available to it. The problem is that its estimates become a self-fulfilling prophesy. It is wrong to take the 4.4 million figure and assume that everyone will want to live in the same place as before or, indeed, that all those people should live in the same place as before.
More than 90,000 units were handed down to Devon by the region. Devon cannot trade with, for example, Cornwall, which has to build only 48,000 houses. Even if the statisticians predict correctly nationally, the Government parcel out the regional allocations using calculations that have been set by historical precedent. The figures are based on past demographic and housing trends. The inability of the regions to trade outside or within themselves means that the historical housing numbers continue unchallenged.
On the basis that we cannot change the figures—they are set in concrete—the task is to accommodate those new housing units throughout the nation without destroying the countryside any further.
Mr. David Drew: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving me the chance to make a short intervention. Does he agree that there is a need to look at alternative methodologies, in particular ones that take account of the regional dimension, which can completely change the way in which the figures are calculated?
Mr. Steen: That is a helpful intervention. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of letting me know that he wanted to intervene. The whole science is questionable. The statisticians have been getting away with a historical perspective that has allowed them to predict and provide year after year, without challenging the science.
Mr. John Burnett: I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree that another flaw in that bogus science is the fact that huge allowance is made for, say, divorcing couples, but no allowance is made for the fact that divorced couples team up with other people thereafter?
Mr. Steen: This is a debate about housing, but the hon. Gentleman is right. Divorce is part of the problem with the housing allocation figures, because the statisticians presume that people are going to go on divorcing at the present rate and living with partners at the present rate. The statisticians go on predicting and providing down that ugly path, which is usually incorrect.
Why do housing projections continue to follow the predict-and-provide model when the Government say that they are ignoring it and another type of planning, which is used for road planning, abandoned the model a long

281
time ago? We have found out that, if we predict traffic levels and build the roads to accommodate them, traffic volume increases above and beyond the projected levels; the M25 is a classic example.
Why should we build more roads if the effect is simply to increase traffic and gridlock? Infinite car usage is not financially, environmentally or socially sustainable; building 90,000 new houses in Devon is not sustainable either. Why on earth do housing planners and statisticians not realise that? No one can stop the planning juggernaut, except the Minister. He alone has access to the brake pedal.
If we build 4.4 million units of housing, they will be occupied sooner or later. What about the effect on the housing market of all that building? Will it not erode the value of existing properties, again creating negative equity for some householders?
The statisticians believe that many of those additional housing units will be used to accommodate the fall-out from family break-ups, which the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) mentioned. Divorce accounts for about a third of the 4.4 million units of new housing required. Again, we are told that 30 per cent. of those new housing units are intended for occupation by an increasing number of single people and by elderly people who are living longer. In addition, there is the movement of people taking or seeking work in another region.
There is also another reason. Statistics from South Hams, which is part of my constituency, show a massive in-migration from outside the county. Between 1981 and 1997, the population of South Hams increased by 15 per cent. By contrast, that of the whole county of Devon increased by only 5 per cent. Therefore, the population increase in South Hams has been out of all proportion to the increase in the county as a whole.
In the three months ending March 1998, 8,233 additional people moved into Devon, and about that number have moved in nearly every quarter since 1988. There is massive in-migration to Devon of 35,000 people a year. Current policy makes provision for all those people and is based on a liberalism and permissiveness that make some feel obliged to respond automatically to all social demands, regardless of the devastation that it wreaks on existing communities.
Having predicted, should we provide? South Hams has among the highest number of designated beauty and conservation areas of anywhere in England and Wales. On being told that it must build 12,000 new units by 2016, South Hams will have to build the equivalent of three or four new towns, all on green-field sites. Even Dartmoor national park, which is also partly in my constituency, has to find room for 800 more houses.
We are faced with the fact that the number of units that are planned for the principal conurbations in Devon—Plymouth and Torbay—is just a fraction more than the number for the countryside of South Hams. Torbay is having 6,300 new houses built, Plymouth 7,000. Between them, Exeter and Plymouth are to build the same number of houses as those planned for the South Hams countryside. If we build houses in one of the most beautiful areas of the United Kingdom, there will always be a queue of people to live in them—until the buildings destroy the beauty of the area.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is the same in the north-west, in my
282
constituency? The ridiculous predictive figures mean that Whittingham will have to provide for an extra 1,000 houses, when only 500 houses exist in the village, and Calderstones and Grimsargh several hundred extra houses. Those small villages will be dwarfed by the new developments.
Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend puts it in his normal lucid and imaginative way. Villages will be swamped and destroyed. That is what the Government have to face.
It is town versus countryside. Even if it is too late to stop the 90,000 units being built in Devon, it is not too late to ensure that housing units are contained within existing urban areas. Cheap and pleasant housing should be made available in our principal cities: Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay. We should rebuild the inner cities to include single-person flats. Young people living in them will help to rejuvenate our city centres.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that, to make our cities attractive, they should be able to keep open spaces for use as parks, and so on? May I take the opportunity to assure him that Plymouth has been doing everything to look at where it can build houses or find new houses? Is he also aware of the structure plan working party of elected Members from our areas, which has looked at the figures? Far from their being handed top down, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, the working party has agreed that, with some modest adjustments, it will be able and will have to provide for the number of houses that are planned. It is a case of plan and manage, rather than predict and provide.
Mr. Steen: It is all very well the hon. Lady saying that Plymouth can absorb all the extra houses. Of course it can, because the figures for Plymouth and Torbay together are only slightly more than the number for the countryside of South Hams. Plymouth does not have a large number.
Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: I will not give way any more.
Mrs. Gilroy rose—
Mr. Steen: I will not give way to the hon. Lady. Plymouth does not have a large number of houses. The houses that are going to damage Devon are the houses that have been allocated to the district councils; they will destroy the countryside. I apologise, but I must get on.
Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Steen: I am not giving way again.
Mrs. Gilroy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I do not think that the hon. Lady really has a point of order. She has made a little speech and I think that she has done very well.
Mrs. Gilroy: Indeed, but the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said that I had said something that I did not say—that Plymouth could cope with providing the houses. It will have great difficulty in doing so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no right of reply. It has to be remembered that this is an Adjournment debate,

283
where a Back Bencher brings a case to the House to allow a Minister to reply. There may be another occasion when the hon. Lady can put the record straight.
Mr. Steen: I hope that I will be given an extra minute, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The intervention by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) took a minute and delayed the progress of an excellent and important speech.
City centres have been emptying into and on to the suburbs since the 1960s, with green-field sites taking the strain. Nottingham and Liverpool illustrate that trend. Inner-city schools are closing down because of lack of demand, while rural and suburban schools try to cope with increasingly unwieldy class sizes. Many built-on sites are under-utilised. The approach roads to Plymouth are lined with one-storey shops—something should be done there.
In Devon, why not concentrate on building the 90,000 new units in the cities? Enough land is left to accommodate those units, whether it be unused, underused, vacant, dormant or derelict. It is all there, but no one will take the lead. Of course, it is easier and cheaper for developers to build on green-field sites, but we must not let builders concrete over green-field land simply because it is cheaper for them to do so than to rehabilitate brown-field urban land. We need to increase the tax on green-field building and give tax incentives for brown-field site development. The present projections are that nearly 1.5 per cent. of England's total land area will be swallowed up by urbanisation by 2016. That means 2,750 acres of the countryside being built on each year.
As for infrastructure, the 90,000 new housing units in Devon will place strains on the sewerage system, water supply, schools, hospitals and so forth. Even where houses are not being built, the ripple effect will impact throughout the county. There will be more cars, schoolchildren and recreational requirements. More general practitioners will be needed, more water will be consumed and more sewage treatment will be needed.
Even the airwaves are already full—so much so that south Devon cannot receive Channel 5, although that may be a blessing in disguise. We simply do not have the environmental capacity to accommodate in Devon everyone who may like to live there. The effect on the environment and the damage to well-established and happy communities would simply be too great.
Predict and provide is a top-down approach and does untold damage. The Government must reverse that policy, which is based on the premise that what has gone before is the yardstick for what should happen. The Government must review the way in which their central housing figures are distributed among the regions. The districts, counties and regions must be prepared to object to the housing figures that are handed down to them when they have the opportunity to do so. It is no good doing what the Liberals did in Devon last July. They voted for 90,000 new units and the very same evening launched a campaign claiming that, if the houses for which they had voted that afternoon were built, untold damage would result and much of the countryside would be suburbanised. That was the action of not merely Liberals at the county level but the Torbay Liberals, the South Hams district council Liberals and the North Devon Liberals, who all voted for
284
the housing figures that they were given, which they admit would destroy the countryside. They vote and then they weep crocodile tears. I see the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) rising and I will give way to him if he will make his intervention short.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I will make it as short as possible, but I do not understand how Liberals in Torbay, a unitary authority, could have voted on those figures for the county. The figures that they chose were below those that the Secretary of State said he had rejected. He is imposing a higher figure and so the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the Secretary of State, not to councillors. Also, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) introduced predict and provide when he was Secretary of State in a Conservative Government.
Mr. Steen: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman will join me in campaigning against the Secretary of State, as the figures are disastrous for Devon.
The Government should review all county structure plan figures. They should create tax incentives for brown-field building and tax green-field developments. Our priority must be to rebuild the cities and save the countryside. As it is, many of our cities resemble doughnuts with no jam left in the middle. Regions should be able to trade housing numbers with other regions and, within them, counties should be able to do the same.
The Government may predict, but they must not automatically provide. If they do, they should allocate housing units to the less populated areas and should not allow the south-east and the south-west to bear the brunt of the housing explosion. The Government must heed a warning from all parts of the country that the countryside is in peril. There is widespread discontent about the housing figures and their allocation. The Government must listen—as the Conservative party is listening—because the people have spoken.
12.44 pm
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on raising this subject and I am grateful to him for asking me to take one minute of his time to endorse what he has said. I do not think that he has left me a full minute, so I will be as quick as I can.
First, I agree with everything that he said about predict and provide. I also agree with most of his conclusions, apart from having some reservations about his passing reference to tax. I rely on my hon. Friend's judgments on matters that affect Devon and will not debate them with Liberal Members, although they endorsed what he said about the methodology of predict and provide, and I think that we all agree about that.
Similar consequences have occurred in Nottinghamshire. One can substitute different place names in the analysis, but similar problems arise. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will show that flexibility for which he is sometimes known and will say that the policy will change.
My district of Rushcliffe is having 14,400 new dwellings imposed on it by a county structure plan that predates the general election. Nothing has changed since then, except that all the road building has been cancelled and the new Government policy is that 65 per cent. of

285
new homes should, where possible, be built on brown-field sites, although our area has only a minuscule number of those. I hope that the Minister will endorse my hon. Friend's suggestion that districts should be allowed to revisit the figures.
The city of Nottingham wants more dwellings than it has been allocated; Rushcliffe wants fewer dwellings. Several of the districts could come to an agreement. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has already said that he may be flexible if the county council is flexible. I hope that we will have a helpful response from the Minister.
12.47 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for allowing me a minute. As a colleague from Devon, I congratulate him because, as he knows, I have fought for more than 20 years to stop the spread of the concrete jungle into the countryside, in particular in Devon.
The projected figures for Devon would mean an increase of more than 30 per cent. in its population. Does the Minister believe that we can do that without ruining much of the environment of the area? My constituency is a prime example. When I fought the 1967 general election, the electorate was 63,000. Since then, the size of my constituency has been cut three times, but if I had now the same parishes that I had then, the electorate would be 122,000. That is the sort of increase that we have already had to put up with. The projected increase would have a terrifying effect on the environment and the countryside—it is not possible. I absolutely support what my hon. Friend has said and I am delighted that he has been able to instigate this debate. The Government must listen. They must revise the figures that they are making the countryside bear.
12.48 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for raising those issues. A number of other hon. Members have also expressed concerns about household growth. The hon. Gentleman also raised this matter in the recent debate on the report on planning for housing by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. He knows from that debate that the Select Committee has carefully considered the validity of the household projections not merely once, but twice. It looked into projections methodology in 1995 and again this year. I cannot do better than to quote the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who is a member of that Committee. He said:
"On the number of houses that we will require between now and 2016, I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who went to great lengths to rubbish …the figures. In Committee, I went to some length to try to find holes in the figures produced by my former colleagues, the excellent civil servants in the Department of the Environment, but no amount of effort on my part could produce an argument to show that 4.4 million was necessarily wrong."—[Official Report, 22 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1426.]
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire served on the Select Committee and looked at the figures critically and carefully. Given the implication of the figures, his view is not surprising—4.4 million sounds a horrendously large
286
figure, but as an annual rate of housing provision it works out at about 175,000 homes a year, which is about half the housing that was provided in the 1960s and is below the trend for the post-war period. It is a relatively low level of new housing provision compared with what occurred previously. That is why it is important to put it in perspective, as the Select Committee has done.
Mr. Burnett: On the methodology point, the demographic pattern is falling as is the number of people living in Britain. There are also other phenomena to which I referred in my intervention on the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). For example, divorcing couples do not necessarily produce two households. In addition, the area does not have the infrastructure to cope with vastly increased numbers.
Mr. Raynsford: I am rather sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, as it is clear that he has not looked carefully at the methodology. The demographics are not falling, the population is not falling and a trend of household increase has persisted throughout most of the post-war period. If the hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would know that most previous housing forecasts have underestimated, not overestimated, the extent of household formation. Hon. Members who have examined the issue carefully—as the Select Committee has done—have reached that conclusion, although some of them did not want to do so. I urge the hon. Gentleman and others who are suspicious of the figures to do their homework; they will then know why so many people have reached that conclusion.
Mr. Steen: Let us accept the figures. Will the Minister now address how we should deal with them?
Mr. Raynsford: That is exactly what I intend to do.
The household numbers are not something that the Government simply dream up. They were not even produced by the present Government, but were produced by the previous Administration. We would have no reason to support them if we did not consider them to be soundly based. We have no reason to change them, and nor does the Select Committee.
People continue to form households almost regardless of the prevailing economic situation and we ignore trends at our peril. We are not talking about speculation. All the people who are considered in need of housing by 2016 have already been born. Are we to deny them decent housing?
The hon. Gentleman referred to migration. I accept entirely that it is a difficult issue for Devon, but as we do not live in a Maoist society that can ban migration, it cannot be ignored. The hon. Gentleman himself migrated to Devon some years ago when he decided that South Hams was more congenial than Liverpool, Wavertree, his previous constituency. Responsible government means that we have to manage population movements as best we can.
Mr. Sanders: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: No. I have already given way more than enough and I am running out of time.
Pulling up the drawbridge or pretending that the problem does not exist is not responsible government. Providing fewer homes would create difficulties. It could

287
worsen housing conditions such as overcrowding, increase homelessness and contribute to house-price inflation. It could also work against the interests of local people with modest incomes, as incomers with large disposable incomes would probably bid up house prices and squeeze out local people. We have to address the issue.
For that reason, we have proposed moving away from the traditional approach of predict and provide, which we did not regard as a satisfactory basis, towards a more bottom-up approach with local authorities playing a key role through regional planning conferences on the principle of plan, manage and monitor rather than predict and provide.
The fundamental point is that the new approach is being developed through the new round of regional planning guidance which will provide the first opportunity to take account of the household projections published in 1995. The draft guidance will set new figures for the region, as well as for the counties and unitary authorities. The figures will also be tested in a public examination, exposing them to considerable public scrutiny, which is obviously sensible. Each region will develop a comprehensive monitoring arrangement to scrutinise the effects of the eventual level of housing which is agreed. Each region of England is currently engaged in the process and in the south-west the regional conference of local authorities is already well advanced with its draft. We need to work together in ensuring that the new approach is developed in as constructive a context as possible, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in developing the new approach.
I now turn to the hon. Gentleman's points about the Devon structure plan and the proposed new settlements adjoining Exeter and Plymouth. As I have mentioned already, household growth is a fact and it is for the local authorities in each area to produce the best solutions they can to manage the growth in the most sustainable way. The structure plan with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned is based on existing regional planning guidance containing housing figures agreed by the authorities in the region back in 1994. That is the guidance to which the structure plan must therefore have regard.
As the hon. Gentleman will no doubt know, the Government have made their concerns clear about the Devon structure plan and it is now for the authorities to decide what action to take in the light of those concerns. The Government wish authorities to be realistic and responsible in allocating land for housing. The main aim of our new approach is to ensure that as much new housing as possible is located on previously developed land. That is why we increased the national target to 60 per cent., although what can be achieved will vary from region to region. In the south-west, only a third of all land used for housing was previously developed. Although I acknowledge that there are particular difficulties in parts of the south-west, nevertheless we will expect a more ambitious target in the new regional planning guidance from the south-west region.
If authorities suggest quite radical approaches such as new settlements, the Government expect the proposals to
288
be sustainable. We have as much interest as anyone in maintaining and enhancing the countryside—especially in beautiful parts of the country such as Devon. We have stressed that the need for any new settlements must be thoroughly justified.
The way forward lies in building on the consensus that lies at the heart of the debate. There is far more common ground than there are differences of views. Everyone wants as much land recycling as possible. Everyone wants more sustainable patterns of development. Everyone wants to protect the countryside and regenerate our urban areas, and I think that everyone wants to ensure that people are adequately housed and not left homeless or in bad housing conditions.
Mr. Steen: I do not mind too much what the Minister is saying, but he has said nothing about how we can stop 12,000 new housing units being built. According to the Library, South Hams is one of the most beautiful constituencies in England and Wales. How does he propose to stop 12,000 houses being built there when the same number is expected to be built in Plymouth and Torbay? How can he switch it so that the countryside is not ruined by too many houses?
Mr. Raynsford: As I have said already, we have made observations in our response to the Devon structure plan and it is now for the county to reach its conclusions before submitting proposals to us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that in the circumstances I cannot make any further comment. However, I have stressed the importance of maximising the amount of development on previously developed land.
The Government are trying to develop that agenda—which I believe is shared—as fast as possible. We made it clear in "Planning for the Communities of the Future" that our first choice for new development is that it should be on previously developed land, preferably within urban areas. We believe that a sequential approach is long overdue and we want authorities fully to explore that option before they propose urban extensions or the release of other green-field sites. The Select Committee supported our national land recycling target of 60 per cent. There is much work to be done to help authorities develop the agenda. We have set up the urban task force, under the guidance of Lord Rogers, to examine the practical issues involved in making better use of brown-field sites.
Work is progressing on the national land use database—the equivalent of a Domesday book for the 21st century—to identify previously developed sites that are available for new housing and we will soon have a much clearer picture of the opportunities to take forward that higher target for recycling.
We have a full programme of revising the relevant planning policy guidance notes. We are currently updating the guidance on planning for housing—PPG3—which will be published for consultation early in the new year. We are also preparing an urban White Paper, which will be published next year. It will set out the most comprehensive and far-sighted programme for urban renewal since our last White Paper in the 1970s.

Supermarkets (Prices)
1 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I am delighted to have been given a slot on a Wednesday morning, although I am a little concerned that the original title of the debate—competitiveness in the retail sector—was vague. I have had journalists and lobbyists ringing me up and asking me what the debate was about, and I think that the Minister was a little confused initially about what my concern was.
Apparently the confusion was caused by a problem of the House. I put in for a debate on the growing power of the supermarkets and the threat that that poses to the consumer. Unfortunately, the Table Office said that the rules of the House would not allow that. Perhaps the Modernisation Committee could look into that at some time in the future.
Overcharging by British supermarkets is nothing new. As far back as 1991, when I was a member of the Agriculture Select Committee, I was part of a high-profile campaign to reduce the price of food in British supermarkets. The campaign was led by The Sunday Times, and both sides of the Chamber were involved in the debate. We had some success: soon after our campaign began, a price war broke out. But then, as these things happen, peace was soon declared.
Seven years ago, we had the highest prices for food in western Europe. Today, we have the highest prices for food in western Europe. So nothing has changed. In reality, things have got worse. The supermarkets try to bamboozle people by introducing gimmicks such as loyalty cards. They charge customers inflated prices, then give them back a pittance in tokens that have to be spent in the supermarket. As a spin-off from loyalty cards, the supermarkets obtain great knowledge of the buying pattern of customers, and people get junk mail through their doors as a result.
I was pleased that, on 30 July this year, the Office of Fair Trading announced that it would look into food prices. I am sure that they will endorse my claim that supermarket companies are not playing fair with the consumer or the supplier. I was led to believe that the report would be out by the end of this year, but I understand that, as a result of public pressure about a detailed report, it is not likely to be available then. Perhaps the Minister can clarify when we are likely to receive the report.
May we now examine the situation in which we find ourselves, especially here in England? There are 3,200 supermarkets. One in three are called superstores, which are premises of more than 25,000 sq ft of selling space. Four companies dominate the market. They have 60 per cent. of the market and 83 per cent. of the superstores. The companies are Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Safeway. The development of supermarkets in the 1960s and 1970s killed off the smaller shops, and in the 1980s and 1990s the supermarkets are giving way to the superstores, many of them in out-of-town locations.
The concentration of power in a small number of retailers has given rise to exploitation in various ways. They have a dominance in the market which enables the retailers to negotiate large discounts from the food manufacturers and suppliers. No food company in Britain can afford not to do business with the big chains. As the British farmers know to their cost, the discounts are often not passed on to the customer.
290
The supermarkets use special offers, whereby they sell products at a very cheap price. By the time the customers have been round the supermarket, they have paid for the cheap price two and three times over. Superstores tend to be on their own site. There is no competition on that site, so people buy the product in that superstore or not at all.
Supermarkets have now developed their own-label brands, which many people think is fair enough. However, they are not all a plus factor. They mean that the retailers have a conflict of interest. They are agents for a manufacturer, yet they are competitors to the manufacturer as well. That has led in many areas to fairly well-known secondary brands not finding a place on the supermarket shelves and disappearing altogether, thereby reducing customer choice. To quote a publication from the British Brands Group:
"the strength of private label has altered the trading relationship between the manufacturer and the retailer—the trading relationship is no longer equal—the retailers possessing a significant competitive edge".
The British Brands Group is made up of many very successful, very large companies, including Unilever, Procter and Gamble, Mars, Nestle and Kellogg. If they are saying that the retailers have an edge over them, the customer has a real problem.
There is also the problem of look-alikes. This is where own-label products masquerade as a product very similar to a well-known brand. The customer may take it by mistake or believe that it is produced by the same manufacturer and therefore that it is good but a few pence cheaper. In reality, few look-alikes are produced by the manufacturer of the branded goods. Again, customers are being misled. In the long term, customer choice will be reduced. Companies will not invest in new products if they believe that their ideas will be copied and they will not receive the payback.
There is limited competition between the supermarkets. There is undisputed evidence that, while the big four have seen off the smaller competitor, they will not engage in true price competition among themselves. In a recent survey by The Grocer magazine of 33 articles, half were identically priced in all the shops. The rest differed by only a few pence.
Dan Norris: Will my hon. Friend explain why he believes that there is no competition between the big four companies? Is it profiteering? It is greed? What is the motive?
Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend will have to listen to the rest of my speech for the answer.
The price of a popular brand, Heinz tomato ketchup, was identical in Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury's and Safeway. There is no competition whatever.
Not only is there little competition among the British supermarkets, but the consumer is paying over the odds in comparison with Europe. A recent survey by The Sunday Times compared Tesco prices to those in Europe. The figures do not make happy reading. There were 22 items in the shopping basket. In the United Kingdom, the cost was £81.59. In Holland it was £49.55, in Belgium it was £50.67, and in Italy it was £60.20. The survey showed that the prices of many popular foodstuffs were at least 40 per cent. higher in the United Kingdom

291
than in America or on the continent. Even when Tesco did its own survey, the prices were still higher than in the majority of European countries.
It is interesting to note that, while prices to farmers and food manufacturers have fallen in the past 12 months, the price of food in British shops has risen by 1.6 per cent. So food costs are higher in the United Kingdom, and supermarket profits are higher. Supermarket profits are about 6 per cent. in the United Kingdom, about 2.6 per cent. in France, and about 2 per cent. in America. So profits in the United States are a third of those in the United Kingdom. Charging higher prices to consumers and paying lower prices to the supplier means that there is only one winner. The statistics prove that both consumer and supplier are being systematically exploited.
The crisis in British farming is well documented, but I want to draw the House's attention to one or two points. Andrew Dare of Milk Marque told me yesterday that, four years ago, 68 per cent. of the price of a pinta went to the farmer; now, that percentage is down to 56 per cent. The problems are similar in respect of pig meat: prices paid to farmers have plummeted, yet supermarket prices have hardly decreased. The prices paid to sheep farmers are at their lowest for 20 years, but supermarket shoppers would hardly notice the difference.
The supermarkets are not passing on cost reductions to the consumer, and the price differential between consumer and supplier is huge. I accept that there are middle-man costs—for example, transport, abattoir and butchering costs—which must be paid, but the chief suspects for capitalising on and exploiting the situation must be the supermarkets. I was pleased when the Office of Fair Trading decided to investigate the excessive profits of the big four, but already a report commissioned by the OFT has highlighted the fact that the big four are using their dominance to extract discounts from suppliers that are used to swell their coffers, instead of being passed on to the consumer in the form of savings.
The case I have made today means that the Government must take action. The supermarkets' immense economic power is a growing threat to the consumer, not a benefit. People talk about the price of petrol, but the proportion of the family budget spent in supermarkets is probably second only to housing costs.
The fear is that supermarkets will increase their stranglehold by expanding in other sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, banking and insurance—I understand that Tesco might even start to sell new cars. What is to be done? We cannot expect the supermarkets to curb their own appetites, because that is not in the nature of the beasts: they are profit-making organisations, and they will exploit their position as best they can. Therefore, the Government must act.
There must be no more mergers or takeovers by the big four. I understand that a merger between Safeway and Asda is being considered. The Government should tell them that that is not on—we do not want any increase in the dominant market share of the big four.
Next, we must consider the problem as it affects regions or cities. If a particular supermarket chain has several stores in an area, to the extent that it dominates the area, we should follow the example set by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when it investigated the brewers.
292
When it was decided that one chain had too many pubs in an area, it was told to sell off some to a competitor. That is what needs to be done with some supermarket outlets.
Certain supermarket practices described in the recent "Panorama" programme should be outlawed. I shall give only one example, so that the Minister has time to reply. A supermarket company tells a manufacturer that it must buy its packaging material from company X, or the supermarket will not take the product. The manufacturer could probably buy cheaper packaging from company Y, but company X gives a kickback to the supermarket. That cannot be right, and must be stopped.
The main challenge facing the Government is to ensure that the supermarket companies compete on price, even though, in an ideal world, we would not start with four big companies whose growth we were trying to restrict. The companies set up a price watch system to check prices in other supermarkets, but not so that prices can be kept low; instead, they price their goods similarly to other supermarkets in the area, so that there is no competition or price war. That cannot be right.
We must find a way of monitoring prices, so that we can tell when something is wrong and step in to ensure free competition. The supermarket bosses are too clever to go into a big room and hammer out a cartel agreement; instead, they use the price watch procedure to achieve the same results. We have to represent the customer. The Department of Trade and Industry has to tell supermarkets that there must be true and fair competition, so that the housewives of the United Kingdom can benefit from cheaper prices.
Mr. Colin Breed: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the four supermarket companies to which he refers are complex monopolies? Each company consists of a huge number of single-store local monopolies, and therein lies the problem: each supermarket is, in itself, a local monopoly—a fact that is not recognised under current OFT rules.
Mr. Martlew: I covered that point when I spoke about superstores. They are the sole occupants of a site, to which the consumer has driven three or four miles. There is no competition nearby—probably the nearest competitor store is on the other side of the city—so the consumer buys from the superstore. The DTI must now give some guidance to the companies, and tell them, "The game is up. We know what you are doing, and it is going to stop."
1.17 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on having raised an important subject. It currently occupies a great deal of space in our newspapers, and rightly so, because it has an impact on every family in the country.
I find it amazing that, until the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) arrived a few minutes ago, there was not a single Conservative Member, Plaid Cymru Member, or Scottish National party Member in the Chamber, despite the fact that they all paint themselves as the farmers' friends. I do not know about theirs, but my front room in Pontypridd has been full of farmers complaining about the buying power

293
of supermarkets. If Opposition Members were that concerned about the issue, they would have turned up for a debate on a subject that we rarely have the opportunity to discuss.
Mr. John Hayes: That is why I am here.
Dr. Howells: I am glad that one Conservative Member is here—that is more than usually show up for debates such as these.
In no uncertain terms, my hon. Friend has emphasised the image of supermarket chains as market tyrants. I shall try to deal with the subject from the point of view of the Department of Trade and Industry. He has described how the big four—Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Safeway—have been able to dominate the buying market, especially the market for farm and primary products, and how they have moved into other areas.
My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that others would paint the supermarkets, especially the big four, as market heroes, citing as evidence their ventures into selling designer goods at low prices. Recently, the chief executive of one chain asked me, "Where is the sense in my being able to go to New York and buy a pair of top-range Levi Strauss jeans for $30 or $40, when they are sold in the high-street specialist outlets in this country for £55 a pair? There is something wrong with that." His chain is now selling those designer jeans at £30 a pair, and I am glad about that.
I glad that the supermarkets are pushing the edges of the envelope by exploiting the possibilities offered by so-called parallel or grey imports—terrible phrases, but unavoidable. They are introducing real competition into the markets for such goods. The high streets are no nirvana for shoppers. I am sure that an enormous amount of careful price calculation goes on—I was going to refer to price fixing, but as a Minister I can no longer use such terms.
Retailers are looking carefully at what the market can bear. Companies trading in well-known branded images and products can make a good profit in countries such as Bulgaria. However, those of us who are very naive and have simple views about these matters wonder why UK companies can buy those products in Bulgaria and sell them in this country—whether in the supermarkets or on the high street—at prices lower than those in retail outlets, and still make a profit. One wonders about the profit margin of those retailers that pitch the original price in this country. We must ask some serious questions, and my hon. Friend can rest assured that, as the new Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, I shall ask those questions every day. I want to uncover the real situation.
My hon. Friend asked about comparisons between United Kingdom prices and those across Europe and the United States. The DTI does not have a section that deals with pricing issues. I was amazed—I suppose I should not say that as a Minister who speaks on behalf of the DTI. I was told that such matters were too complex to examine, but I think it is about time that we had that information. I open newspapers every day and see price comparisons, some of which my hon. Friend mentioned. Where is my database that will allow me, as a Minister, to say what is and is not true?
The excellent officials in my Department are beginning to construct a prices database so that we will know where we are. Price information is very important for families in
294
this country. I have seen articles and editorials in the Sunday Times that refer to "rip-off Britain". I am very glad that those reports have been published. Someone should try to compare the prices of goods in the United States, France or Canada with those in this country. That is an excellent policy for newspapers to adopt, and I shall respond as best I can.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) have raised some interesting and important points in this debate. The definition of the boundary or extent of a market is vital. My hon. Friend's constituency of Carlisle is very much like many constituencies in Wales: it is a mix of urban and rural areas. It is easy for supermarkets to dominate a particular region or locality without having a dominant share of the UK market. We must examine that situation carefully, because dominance can easily distort markets, in terms of prices or selling power and so on.
I am extraordinarily glad that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), and the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)—three very distinguished members of the Conservative party—have just entered the Chamber. It is excellent to see the hon. Member for Salisbury, for whom I have great regard, on the Front Bench. That is welcome news, because this is an important debate.
We are determined to ensure that there is transparency of pricing for all, whether it is the farmer trying to sell his farm produce to supermarket chains or the shopper trying to secure the best bargain. I think that that is what my hon. Friend is seeking. There are many variables involved in the selling equation. There is no question that supermarkets have revolutionised retailing. I will admit from the Dispatch Box that I quite enjoy shopping at my local Tesco. I like the fact that I can drive there and do my shopping for the week or the fortnight. There is wide choice inside the supermarket, and it is convenient. Unfortunately, the appalling car parking situation in my home town makes it difficult to shop in the town centre.
Mr. Breed: Does the Minister accept that, although dominance in the marketplace is not illegal as such, the abuse of that dominance is a concern? Companies may dominate the market, so long as they trade fairly.
Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the problem. We must discover whether this country's great supermarket chains are abusing their dominant positions.
My hon. Friend mentioned that the Director General of Fair Trading, Mr. John Bridgeman, is currently examining this matter. His team at the Office of Fair Trading is investigating the profitability of the major supermarkets in the grocery sector, focusing on whether competition between the majors has been distorted to the detriment of consumers. Mr. Bridgeman is due to report early in the new year, and I am sure that all hon. Members are looking forward to those findings.
In the meantime, what evidence do we have of abuses of market power? It depends where we look. The farmers who were in my front room complaining about the situation will tell us that, yes, the market is being distorted and abused. We approached Tesco and pointed out that, although the current market price of a steer is £490, the shelf prices of the products derived from that steer total £1,124. We asked where that extra cost had come from.

295
The supermarket told me that it costs £634 to process the steer into saleable meat. It gave us a breakdown of that sum. It said that 63 per cent. of the steer is waste and must be thrown away, and that the remaining 37 per cent. of the steer must sell for an average of £5.13 per kilogram—or £2.33 per pound for those of us who still use the imperial system—in order to cover costs. Tesco also told us that £4.83 per kilogram is its average selling price, so it is making a 30p per kilogram loss on beef sales. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are groaning—and I can understand why. Those figures should be examined in light of the declared profits of some supermarket chains, and the OFT, under John Bridgeman, will do just that.
I do not think that it is easy to compare the profitability of United Kingdom supermarket companies. A report published this week by Verdict Research claims that there is no easy way of making that comparison. The report states:
"Verdict does not believe that Britain's grocers are overcharging … the market is too highly competitive for that to happen and competition is intensifying. The average operating profit margin of the four leading grocers has fallen by nearly one fifth, from 7.2 per cent. in 1992/93 to 6 per cent. in 1997/98. British grocers are not more profitable than their Continental counterparts once factors like longer European supplier payment terms, and the preponderance of leasehold property, are taken into account. UK retailers are all quoted and have traditionally sought to maximise their profitability to attract investors. Most Continental retailers are privately owned and minimise their reported profits in order to pay as little tax as possible. This helps give the impression that they are giving customers a much better deal than British companies."
My hon. Friend raised many issues in his short and very pertinent speech. Although we recognise the extra choice, convenience and lower prices that supermarkets have provided for consumers in the past 20 years, and although we welcome the entry of supermarkets into the retailing of non-food goods such as clothing and electrical products—which will strengthen competition in those sectors—I stress that, as Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, I shall continue to champion the rights of consumers. I welcome the OFT inquiry into the profitability of major supermarkets in the grocery sector. We will ensure that, at long last, the DTI becomes the consumers' champion.

Major Eric Joyce
1.30 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this Adjournment debate concerning Major Joyce. I requested the debate because, over the past 16 months, my hon. Friends and I have failed to gain satisfactory answers from Ministers about the Major's future and because his case strikes at the heart of the important principle that our armed forces do not actively participate in party politics.
As the House will recall, in August 1997, Major Eric Joyce of the Adjutant-General's Corps published a Fabian Society pamphlet under the heading, "Labour in Action", entitled, "Arms and the Man—Renewing the armed services". He did so without first seeking permission from the Ministry of Defence, as is required by a serving officer under Queen's regulations. As Major Joyce said in an interview in The Times on 4 August 1997:
"you can't get radical ideas like this into the public domain if you go through the chain of command".
The Ministry of Defence was rightly concerned about what Major Joyce had done, and Members of Parliament should also be concerned. Much was made at the time by Major Joyce, through media interviews, of the fact that he was criticising senior Army officers as being class-ridden public school products.
I read his pamphlet with great interest. He touched on many issues, including recruitment, training, ethnic minorities and civil liberties. Much of what he said was controversial; some of it was interesting; some of it was obviously plain wrong and some of it was eccentric. It was really a political polemic.
We should ask two questions. Why was it necessary for Major Joyce, a serving Army officer, to publish his views in a Labour party publication? Why not use, for example, one of the in-house Ministry of Defence journals or one of many academic journals? The Major's action meant that the issue immediately became party political.
In the few months leading up to autumn 1997, we heard more from Major Joyce about his case and the possibility that he would face disciplinary charges. His wife was reported in The Sunday Telegraph on 12 October 1997 as saying that, if he was threatened with court martial, he would take the Army to the European Court of Human Rights. What emerged from those exchanges—it seemed that Major Joyce was hardly out of the media—was the fact, that despite being repeatedly warned not to speak to the media about his views, Major Joyce continued to do so.
I understand that Major Joyce believes that he has a basic right to air his views and that the Army was being old-fashioned and restrictive, but he is not living in the real world. Most public and private organisations maintain official and unofficial codes of conduct for their employees or members. Major Joyce continued to criticise senior officers and expected to have the right to do so. I put it to the House that most organisations, after giving warnings, would tell an employee that, if he continued his actions, they would reluctantly have to "let him go", to use the current management jargon.
In late October 1997, we learned through the press that Major Joyce could keep his job, provided that he did not again breach disciplinary codes, and was to keep his views

297
on the state of the Army to himself. He was given permission—for which he had urged very strongly in his pamphlet—to publish a journal called "The Armed Services Forum".
Why did the Army and the Ministry of Defence make that decision? We learned, once again through the press, that the Lord Chancellor had written to the Secretary of State for Defence advising him not to take action against Major Joyce because of the fear that, if the officer took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, any ruling would come up in the run-up to the next election, which
"would not be good timing".
Whatever right the Lord Chancellor has to involve himself across the board in departmental matters concerning the law, the letter has, to say the least, a party political spin, which is totally objectionable.
Ministers appeared to back Major Joyce when the Secretary of State for Defence said at a Fabian Society seminar—some coincidence there—on 13 November 1997 that he wanted to increase the number of officers from state schools. The Daily Telegraph on 14 November said:
"Mr. Robertson and other ministers are known to be sympathetic to Major Joyce's views."
There is an irony about the background of officers, MPs and Ministers and what kind of school they attended. Given Major Joyce's criticism that senior officers were out of touch with people because so many of them went to public schools, it is ironic that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Defence Procurement—50 per cent. of the Ministers in the MOD—attended public schools. So what? We judge Ministers on how competent they are, not by their background, and it seems ironic that Major Joyce should not have taken that into account.
By the end of 1997, Major Joyce had successfully and repeatedly contravened Queen's regulations, but the Lord Chancellor had intervened on his behalf, there had been sympathetic noises from the Secretary of State for Defence and the Major had been told that he could continue his career and publish a journal but that he had to refrain from further public utterances. A number of his friends would have said that that was a reasonable compromise and, in many respects, from his perspective, he had won a political victory.
At that point in the case, party politics raised its head. When Major Joyce published his Labour party pamphlet in August 1997, he was already known by many Army friends at Upavon as a supporter of the Labour party. Indeed, he had helped the party during the general election. He told people at Upavon that he had thought about standing as a Labour parliamentary candidate in Scotland. In response to a question, the then Minister for the Armed Forces admitted that he had met Major Joyce twice before the general election.
From the new year onwards, Major Joyce's activities became less covert and more overtly party political. Despite being told not to speak to the media, he was quoted in The Sunday Times on 1 February 1998 as saying that he was definitely new Labour. On 14 June 1998, The Sunday Times told us that Major Joyce had been selected for a shortlist of Labour candidates for the Scottish Parliament. Through parliamentary questions in the summer, I learned that, despite blatantly breaking Queen's regulations, which state that service personnel should not take an active part
298
in party politics and should resign if they want to stand as parliamentary candidates, no application to resign had been received from Major Joyce.
In November, Major Joyce appeared on Scottish television, where he was named as speaking on behalf of the Scottish Labour party. We learned in The Times on 25 November 1998 that Major Joyce is to be summoned before the Army Board and might face administrative discharge. On 29 November, in The Sunday Times, a rather emotional Major Joyce said that he might well take his case to the European Court of Human Rights. At that point, he lost not only his script, but any support or sympathy that he might have received from service personnel.
I suspect that Major Joyce would like to portray himself as the "Upavon one" or a latter-day Captain Alfred Dreyfus. He is neither. Even when given the benefit of the doubt when he published his pamphlet, he had his own political agenda. As a serving officer, he has openly been a Labour party supporter and, for the past four months, he has been actively seeking to become a parliamentary candidate. Not only has he repeatedly and blatantly broken every agreement that he has ever made, but he has become party politically partisan. He is honour bound to leave the Army and pursue his political career.
The case not only raises fundamental questions about the armed services not becoming involved in party politics, but casts serious doubts on ministerial judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has written to the Secretary of State for Defence asking why Major Joyce has been able to flout the rules and regulations and openly participate in party politics. I know that the Minister took up his appointment only in the summer of this year, but I emphasise to him that many members of the armed services believe that Major Joyce has had "political top cover". That may not be true, but that is the impression among many service personnel.
I ask the House to consider what would have happened last year if a serving Army officer who had openly talked about becoming a Scottish National party candidate for the Scottish Parliament had written an article in a Scottish newspaper questioning the relevance of our nuclear deterrent. I suggest that he would have been out of the Army forthwith.
What would have happened this summer to a serving Army officer who intended being a Conservative Euro-candidate but who wrote an article for The Spectator criticising cuts in the Territorial Army? He would have been out. We know that for a fact because, in November, General Sir Michael Walker, Commander-in-Chief Land Command, wrote a letter warning all service men that, if they were caught leaking any information about the TA, they would be court-martialled. It seems that there is one rule for one act of indiscipline, and perhaps none for Major Joyce.
Ministers have got themselves into a mess. Service men are now somewhat bewildered about what they can and cannot do. There has been political interference in the Army by the Lord Chancellor. The Government are in danger of losing—
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Simpson: I am sorry; I am winding up my comments.

299
The Government are in danger of losing the confidence of our service personnel. All hon. Members should support the principle that serving service personnel do not involve themselves in party or partisan politics.
I assure the House that, if any serving officer who intended becoming a Conservative candidate wished to criticise the Army, I would advise him immediately to leave the Army and pursue his point as far as he could in a political career. That is now a well-established tradition. In the past, serving personnel were allowed to sit in Parliament. That was to the detriment of the services, and it caused all kinds of disruption and, indeed, some disloyalty. It also threatened civil-military relations.
This case is about not only Major Joyce—he will do what he wants to do—but a very important principle. Service men are entitled to hold political beliefs. They express them very strongly to us, as it is right and proper that they should, but we should defend the principle, set out in Queen's regulations, that, if a serving member of the armed forces wishes actively to join a political party or to pursue a parliamentary career, he should resign. That is what Major Joyce should have done.
1.43 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who has allowed us the opportunity to explain the Army's handling of the Major Joyce case and to reiterate the Government's position on the issue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the letter from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I hope to deal with some of the points covered in that letter, in addition to those raised by the hon. Gentleman.
I must say at the outset that I reject absolutely any suggestion that there has been any "political top cover" in this case. I shall cover some of the principles involved in the case and then give a brief account of the events of the Joyce case.
Major Joyce is a serving officer of the British Army. He is the author of a discussion paper from the Fabian Society—a society, which, incidentally, is not a Labour party body—published in August 1997 and entitled "Arms and the Man—Renewing the Armed Services". The personal views contained in that paper are, in a number of respects, critical of the present management of the Army.
The action being taken by the Army against Major Joyce is of an administrative rather than a disciplinary nature. I am sure that the House will understand that, in my comments today, I must take care not to prejudice the outcome of that management action.
Major Joyce's actions were of concern to the Army not because of the content of his article, or, indeed, of his subsequent articles, but because the manner of its release showed complete disregard of Queen's regulations and of his commanding officer.
Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a consultation process on the strategic defence review was about to begin at the time in question and that that consultation process itself was still under discussion? I recall going to a meeting with his predecessor and
300
commenting on how it could be improved. In those circumstances, was it not reasonable for an officer to put his views in the way that Major Joyce did?
Mr. Henderson: There is a clear distinction between the responsibilities of an Army officer in discharging his duties, expressing his views, being consistent with Army policy and seeking approval for the expression of those views in any form, and the privileges that a citizen of this country has in being able to express views on any subject that he wishes. An Army officer, like any citizen of this country, has the right to free expression, but he must be able to draw that distinction. It is an important distinction, which I hope that all our Army personnel would recognise. It is certainly one that I confirm as crucial in the execution of the Army's responsibilities.
The Army is, after all, a part of society, and its values must reflect those of society. However, it is a cohesive and disciplined force. Its effectiveness—and, ultimately, the safety of every individual soldier in it—depends on individual and collective respect for that discipline.
The sort of requirements imposed by Queen's regulations on serving personnel are not novel. They mirror those that apply throughout the civil service and elsewhere in the public sector. They require that anyone wishing to publish views and opinions seek permission in advance. The regulations pertaining to political activities by serving members of the armed forces have been clearly explained to Major Joyce, and it is therefore disappointing that he has chosen not to act in accordance with them.
The decision to investigate the authorship by Major Joyce of a publication and some newspaper articles which were critical of aspects of defence policy and recruitment was taken by the Army chain of command. Such action simply followed established Army procedures. Ministers were not at any time involved in either the decision to investigate Major Joyce's actions or in the course that the inquiry took. The temporary suspension of Major Joyce in August 1997, while an investigation was conducted, was not a disciplinary action, and was not recorded as suh.
The completed investigation report was forwarded by Major Joyce's chain of command to the Army prosecuting authority for consideration. The report was not copied to, or seen by, Ministers. I should like to reassure the House that the Army prosecuting authority is independent of, and cannot be directed by, the military chain of command or, indeed, Ministers on any cases that it is asked to consider. It is subject only to legal oversight by the Attorney-General.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Henderson: I shall give way, but the hon. Gentleman is taking up some of the time that I need to explain the background to the case.
Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister confirm that the Lord Chancellor's letter was seen by the Army prosecuting authority before it came to its decision?
Mr. Henderson: I cannot confirm that because I do not know what information the Army prosecuting authority had in examining whether there was a case against Major Joyce. It is quite rightly a matter for the authority, not for Ministers.

301
The decision whether to prosecute a case referred to the Army prosecuting authority is based on the realistic prospect of obtaining a conviction based on the evidence, and on whether a prosecution is in the interests of the public and the service. It will depend on an assessment of all pertinent legal, evidential and procedural issues. The tests are essentially the same as those applied to the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk agrees that it would not be appropriate to disclose the basis on which the Army prosecuting authority reached its decision not to court-martial Major Joyce. Indeed, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to be aware of that basis, let alone disclose it.
Major Joyce returned to work in September 1997, when he was posted to a job appropriate to his rank in the Adjutant-General's Corps at Worthy Down. That move was deemed necessary because Major Joyce had irrevocably undermined the confidence of his former employing officer. Major Joyce continued to seek and receive media attention in continued disregard for Queen's regulations. That behaviour led, in October 1997, to a formal warning.
In February 1998, Major Joyce was formally interviewed by his commanding officer, in which he was informed of his commanding officer's recommendation to the military secretary that he should not be employed further in the Army. Major Joyce was then sent home. He has remained away from work since that time. He has made no application to resign or retire from the Army. The recommendations made by Major Joyce's commanding officer to the Army chain of command concerning his future in the Army should be properly confidential between the two parties. However, I would reassure the House that Ministers have played no part whatever, either formally or informally, in the process, which is on-going.
302
The time taken to conclude the review of Major Joyce's future in the Army is regretted, but not without explanation. The procedure is considered and measured, and gives the individual the fullest opportunity to make representation at every stage of the process. Until the process is complete, an officer properly continues to be paid, and his terms and conditions of service remain extant.
The matter is being considered at Army board level by two non-ministerial members of the board who have not previously been involved in handling the case. Major Joyce has seen, and had the opportunity to comment on, all material before the board, save only for legal advice. He has been offered the opportunity of an oral hearing with the board later this month, at which his solicitor may be present if he so wishes. The decision on Major Joyce's future in the Army will be taken exclusively by those Army board members. Ministers have no involvement in the process unless Major Joyce is dissatisfied with the Army board's decision in respect of redress of a complaint and petitions the sovereign. In that case, the Army's submission would be forwarded to the Palace through the Secretary of State.
Many things can be said on this issue. I want to make it clear that I reject entirely any suggestion of a political cover-up or of any inappropriate ministerial involvement. Inevitably, there have been discussions between Ministers and between Ministers and officials on the handling of the public and parliamentary aspects that have arisen in the case, but in no other regard has there been any involvement, as has been suggested. The treatment of Major Joyce by the Army chain of command has been entirely fair and reasonable.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    National Assembly
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on the (a) construction and (b) cost of the National Assembly. [61559]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Anyone who has experience of a major public building project will know that we are at an early stage in the design process. I want to involve a wide range of interested groups in the process, including political party leaders in Wales, disabled people, young people and, as matters progress, Assembly Members. The capital cost was identified, during the legislative process, as £17 million, and that figure is not expected to increase. Running costs were identified as between £15 million and £20 million, and I have no reason to differ with those figures.
    Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, and I am glad that he has taken such care in making detailed plans for the location and cost of the Assembly. However, would it not have been better for a party that is overwhelmingly committed to devolution of decisions to wait until the Assembly was up and running—only months from now—and allow Assembly Members to take their own decisions about the Assembly's location, cost and design?
    Mr. Michael: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman knows as much about major building projects as he does about devolution. The planning and the building—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman were listening to the answer to his question, I might think that he had come into the Chamber with a real question, not simply to try to score points. Any major building project takes time to develop, and people need to be involved in that process in order to ensure that we have a building for the Assembly of which Wales will be proud, and which will demonstrate to the world outside the confidence with which the Assembly is being established. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look on with interest as that happens.
    Mr. Ron Davies: This is my first opportunity in the House to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State. May I therefore take the opportunity to convey to him my good wishes and support over the coming months? They will be very exciting for Wales, and they will be very challenging and demanding for everyone at the Welsh Office. I send my best wishes to all who will be involved in the coming period.
    On the subject of the Assembly, my right hon. Friend will know of my gratitude to his constituency predecessor, now Lord Callaghan, and a very distinguished panel of judges who have brought forward the Richard Rogers design concept. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is the concept that he is now developing for the
    304
    Assembly building, and will he tell the House whether he has any proposals for developing that design in a way that embraces the express wishes of the people of Wales?
    Mr. Michael: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. May I return the compliment by congratulating him on his bearing throughout what has been an extremely difficult time for him personally? I am also grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to join him in thanking my predecessor, Lord Callaghan, who has brought enormous experience and wisdom to bear on the project of considering the potential designs.
    I am happy to confirm that I feel that the process is moving forward very well indeed; it is on a sound basis. One or two people seem to have thought that there might be some doubt about the process going forward. I have never said anything that was intended to encourage that idea. The one thing that I did say initially was that I would look to be fully briefed before making any comment. Having been briefed, and having looked with the architects at the design concept, I believe that it is very exciting, but it is only a concept at this stage, and it needs to develop in a way that respects the nature of the Assembly that we are trying to create, and that is as inclusive as possible. I believe that it has the potential to be developed in that way.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Can the Secretary of State for Wales confirm that the budget for advertising the elections to the Welsh Assembly is in the region of £2 million? If that is the case, can he confirm that the people of Wales will be astonished to learn that that is the figure, and that they will believe that the money could be far better spent on hospitals in Wales, on schools in Wales or on law and order in Wales?
    Will the Secretary of State also take on board the fact that the advertising campaign should be conducted on an all-party basis? Will he be inviting representatives of the political parties in Wales to discuss the campaign for the elections to the Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Michael: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's choice of words is accurate. We are talking about information being available so that people understand the elections in which they have an opportunity to take part as distinct from campaigns, which are for the individual political parties to run. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that I wish to be inclusive in the way in which we debate these matters, which is why I have met the leaders of the political parties in Wales to discuss their concerns. Opposition parties have a place in the political process, as does the majority party, which Labour intends to continue to be.
    I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in education, schools and law and order in Wales. It will be something of a surprise to the people of Wales. A specific budget has not been set aside at this stage. We shall enter into those matters in due course.

    EU Structural Funds
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will meet the Commission of the European Union to discuss the Principality's eligibility for EU structural funds under the EU financial perspective for the years 2000 to 2006. [61560]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Over the past year, Ministers have been fully involved in discussions at the United Kingdom level and in Brussels, and will continue to be so in the new year.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not the case that west Wales and the valleys have a gross domestic product per head of 72 per cent. of the national average? That is significantly below the threshold of 75 per cent., which is eligibility for objective 1 status for structural funds. How is it that it seems likely that that eligibility will not lead to any award of structural funds for this region, which is the second poorest after Cornwall? How is it that huge tracts of the country will not have objective 2 status? Is it not the case that the people of Wales would be much better off if they gave less of their money to Brussels, because they get so little back?
    Mr. Hain: I have always known that the hon. Gentleman is bonkers on Europe; however, this question has taken the biscuit. The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. The proportion of European average gross domestic product of west Wales and the valleys is 71 per cent., which will mean that the region will qualify for structural funds under objective 1 status. We shall be negotiating with the European Commission and with our European partners through the British Government, who strongly support Wales's bid, to ensure that we achieve the maximum possible benefit.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will my hon. Friend give some account of the work of the task force that was set up to gain objective 1 status and to make good use of the money? Does he agree that local authorities have a critical role to play in developing a raft of schemes that will qualify for objective 1 funding so that we shall be off to a flying start if the funds come through in 2000?
    Mr. Hain: Yes. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the work of the task force will be critical in mobilising maximum resources from public funds and from the private sector working with local authorities. He makes a good point. The task force should be working now to ensure that Wales is well able to take the maximum opportunity available to it when the funds come in from 1 January 2000. We can learn from Ireland, which has been extraordinarily successful in this respect. Wales can emulate Ireland and regenerate the whole of west Wales and the valleys, which have been so badly decimated by nearly 20 years of Tory rule.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: With reference to new structural funding, is the Minister able to reassure us that agricultural decline and sparsity of population in areas such as Powys will be considered fully in relation to their attaining objective 2 status in future, at the same time as other parts of Wales attain objective 1 status?
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The Government are seeking to persuade the European Commission to alter the eligibility criteria for objective 2 funding in particular, which focuses far too narrowly on unemployment rates. A variety of additional
    306
    factors should be taken into account, including the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and Powys's situation is of particular concern to us.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: First, will my hon. Friend confirm—there have been many newspaper reports about this—that the valleys and west Wales have now been designated for objective 1 status? Has that been decided? Secondly, we read in the newspapers about the sum of £2 billion. Over the six years, will that sum be available to south Wales, the valleys and west Wales?
    Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend raises some important points both for his constituency in Llanelli and for the whole of the designated NUTS 2 area, which has been accepted by Eurostat as qualifying for objective 1 status. As it meets the below 75 per cent. of GDP criterion, it will qualify, but we must negotiate with our European partners. The negotiations will take place in March to ensure that the status is confirmed and to agree the figure that my right hon. Friend mentions. We hope to get the maximum benefit, and it has been suggested that west Wales and the valleys could be entitled to some £1.5 billion to £2 billion.

    Public Transport
    Mr. Norman Baker: What steps he is taking to encourage better co-ordination between train and bus services within the Principality. [61561]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Our policy statement "Transporting Wales into the Future" will deliver more through ticketing, improved interchange facilities, better connections between services and improved availability of passenger information.
    Mr. Baker: Although I accept that the Government have done what they can to solve the problem of poor train connections, will the Minister seriously address the problem of poor train and bus connections? In Machynlleth, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. öpik), one can arrive on a train to find that the bus departed moments earlier and the next bus leaves hours later. What will the Minister do to address that consequence of Tory privatisation?
    Mr. Hain: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is so well briefed on Machynlleth's problems and I share with him and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) the desire to improve its bus and train interconnections. We have already made considerable progress, particularly on the Cardiff valley line, which now has bus interconnections with many of the valley towns on its route. Unlike our Tory predecessors, we are injecting extra resources into integrated transport packages which promote public transport to the maximum possible extent.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If he will make a statement on unemployment levels in (a) Gwynedd and (b) Wales. [61562]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Seasonally adjusted figures show that, in October, there were 67,800 people unemployed in Wales. That represents 5.4 per cent. of the labour force. On an unadjusted basis, the rate was 5.3 per cent. Figures for unitary authorities are available only on an unadjusted basis. In Gwynedd, there were 3,540 people unemployed on that basis, a rate of 6.4 per cent.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that the level of unemployment in Gwynedd is unacceptably high and that something must be done about it as a matter of urgency? In that context, what is happening in the review of the regional assistance maps under the Industry Acts, and will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need to ensure a correlation between areas of high unemployment and those designated for the highest level of regional development?
    Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman says that something must be done, and I agree with him. However, on the unadjusted figures, Gwynedd had 9 per cent. unemployment in October 1996 and that is down to 5.3 per cent this year, as I said. That represents real progress. The impact of objective I status will be considerable, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the need also to promote assisted area status in Wales. In the past few weeks, I have announced the financial package for farmers in Wales; I have been to Newtown to ram home the priority of helping west and mid-Wales with the Welsh Development Agency; we have come to the brink of achieving objective 1 status; and we are making clear our intention to help areas such as Gwynedd in a variety of ways.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: Given that the jobs problem may worsen in the coming months, shall we not be more and more dependent on the new deal? In that context, will my right hon. Friend comment on the failure of many of the quangos in Wales—training and enterprise councils, health trusts and health authorities—to employ anyone under the new arrangements? Are not those organisations letting Wales and the Government down?
    Mr. Michael: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we have taken up that issue. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), has written to those bodies expressing the wish that they should provide opportunities through the new deal.
    We want the new deal to bring people into jobs and employability, so it is important that we should continue to grow jobs in Wales as well as attracting jobs into Wales. As my hon. Friend says, there have been job losses but, in recent weeks, there have also been job gains in many parts of Wales, both in north and south Wales. However, we need to keep the pressure up through the new deal and with long-term sustainable jobs.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Does the Secretary of State expect unemployment in Wales to be higher or lower at the time of the Welsh Assembly elections?
    Mr. Michael: To some extent, that depends on how the economy develops. It would be interesting to know what the hon. Gentleman expects. I rather think that, at the time
    308
    of the general election, he did not expect to see unemployment coming down, as it has under this Government.
    Dr. Fox: It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State is not confident that unemployment will continue to fall, as it did under the Conservatives in a way that has benefited Wales so much. It is a little ironic that the Secretary of State is putting the most energy into his own job search. He wants to represent his own constituency, to represent a totally different constituency in another part of Wales, to remain Secretary of State for Wales and to lead Labour in the Welsh Assembly. As others are beginning to lose their jobs, the right hon. Gentleman wants not one, two or three jobs, but four jobs. Is that what the new deal means to the Secretary of State in Wales?
    Mr. Michael: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to expose to the House the fact that neither he nor his party has the slightest interest in the people on whom unemployment in Wales bears down. He is interested in scoring cheap points. Labour Members are interested in helping those in jobs to keep them, and in finding jobs for the unemployed. The hon. Gentleman has marked out the difference between us.
    Mr. Barry Jones: In the past four months, my constituency has lost more than 400 jobs—for example, 200 at the Optical Fibres plant, 150 at Shotton steelworks and 100 with the closure of the Kimberly-Clark factory. In addition, I, my constituents and my county council fear that the Commission in Brussels may well plan to strip my constituency of its assisted area status. I look to my right hon. Friend and the Government to tell the Commission that that should not happen in a constituency which only recently suffered the largest redundancy ever in Europe when we lost 8,000 jobs at Shotton.
    Mr. Michael: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend. I referred earlier to the fact that there have been job losses and gains in various parts of Wales. The immediate situation has led to some problems for my hon. Friend. There are some things that will help, such as the power station announcement for Shotton Paper. However, I take on board my hon. Friend's points, and I look forward to spending some time with him in his constituency in the coming weeks to discuss with employers, trade unionists and others the problems and aspirations that he shares with them in his constituency.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement about drug abuse in rural Wales. [61563]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): Drug misuse is a threat to all our communities, whether rural or otherwise. We are determined to tackle this very serious problem.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister believe that people who are convicted of drug supply offences should be deprived of public housing and, if so, should that happen in rural Wales or in the whole of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Jones: How best to deal with drugabuse and the housing problems suffered not just by the drug abusers but by their families is a difficult problem which must be considered in an holistic way.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister refers to an holistic way. How precisely will the drugs problem in rural Wales be tackled? A few years ago, there was no problem in rural areas, but now there is a huge problem. What approach will be adopted, which agencies will be involved and what will be done?
    Mr. Jones: In Wales, we have embarked on a strategy of having five drug and alcohol action teams, which help to co-ordinate all the important agencies—social services, education, the police, the Prison Service and the probation service. That is what I mean by an holistic approach to the problem, which is complex, not single-issue. We need to bring in all the agencies that will be involved in trying to help with this difficult and growing problem.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. John Smith: If he will make a statement on the reconfiguration of NHS trusts in Wales. [61564]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): On 3 December, I announced decisions to reconfigure NHS trusts in Wales. Details were circulated to hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies on that day. Waiting list figures have been announced today by the Under—Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). Figures are going down, which is another step towards delivering another of our manifesto promises. I accept that we have a long way to go, but we are on the way.
    Mr. Smith: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the leadership skills that he has displayed in handling and dealing with that difficult issue in Wales? He has managed to strike a balance between the genuine concerns of local people—in my constituency in particular—and the need to make bold decisions to meet our future health needs. Can he give me an assurance that the quality of services at Llandough hospital and community health services in the Vale of Glamorgan will not be reduced as a result of these proposals? Will he meet my community health council to discuss its future, in view of the reconfiguration?
    Mr. Michael: I am happy to meet representatives of the Vale of Glamorgan community health council, as my hon. Friend requests. I assure him that the service provided at Llandough hospital and in community services in the Vale of Glamorgan will remain integrated. I hope that services will continue to be of a high standard and, indeed, improve. I also assure him that the statement last week was the beginning, not the conclusion, of the job of improving health services in every locality in Wales. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. It is rather noisy.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: Is it not the case that the reconfiguration exercise has been a half-hearted
    310
    business, and that it will cause more disruption than gains through administrative savings? Is it not also the case that, as long as there are health authorities and trusts, there is an internal market? Do Ministers now accept that there should be an internal market in the NHS? If not, would they not be better abolishing all the trusts and moving to the kind of integrated system of health care and commissioning that is appropriate to Wales, and that would be cost-effective and acceptable in Wales?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's question is rather odd, but I shall try to respond. We are certainly ending the fruitless competition between different parts of the health service in Wales. That is the purpose of creating trusts that are large enough and contain the three elements—acute, community and mental health services—to provide a single health service for the people of Wales. We have tried to recognise the unusual circumstances in his area—and in Powys, for example—which need to be dealt with by respecting local need. The example of health savings that we have is those achieved by the Pembrokeshire and Derwen merger, which exceeded what was anticipated.
    Savings from that merger alone are £750,000. I am, therefore, confident that significant savings—perhaps larger than we have predicted—can be made and delivered back into patient care. I repeat my undertaking to meet the hon. Gentleman, and representatives of the health services and people who depend on them, in Ceredigion to discuss the specific circumstances there, which I know are difficult.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether he intends to set individual efficiency targets for each of the trusts, whether they are new or have been left untouched by the changes? Can he foresee even greater savings and improvements in the delivery of health services in Wales coming out of that?
    Mr. Michael: We expect the health service, including trusts, to meet efficiency targets. New trusts should present to us their plans for creating an effective, integrated health service for their areas. They should set targets and explain their intentions. I hope that we can make improvements in the health service together, and that trusts will achieve the targets that they have helped to set and which go beyond those set nationally. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend because, when he was a Minister, he did a great deal of the spadework required to achieve the improvements that we seek.
    Madam Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not speak into the microphone, his words will not be recorded.

    Livestock Industry
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the Welsh livestock industry. [61565]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): The Department is working with the Welsh Development Agency and the industry to develop an action plan for the lamb and beef sectors, which will be published in the new year. Coupled with the lifting of the beef export ban, it will provide a basis for the Welsh livestock industry to strengthen its competitiveness and adapt to meet the challenges facing it.
    Mr. Paterson: I do not want to be churlish, but the lifting of the beef ban 10 days ago was only a partial

    311
    success. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If hon. Members would listen, they would learn that one of Britain's premier exporters of quality beef told me 10 days ago that the beef that is most in demand by high-quality restaurants and distributors is beef on the bone for large roasts and T-bone steaks. When will the ban on beef on the bone be lifted, so that abattoirs can take the substantial commercial risk of dedicating a whole plant to export business?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is being churlish. The Conservative Government were responsible for the total failure that resulted in the imposition of a beef ban.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that the livestock industry in Wales has greatly welcomed the lifting of the beef export ban, which was negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture? Does not that show that the interests of Welsh farmers will be much better served by the Government's positive approach to Europe, as opposed to the anti-European posturing of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. To secure its future, our industry must regain the markets in Europe that it has lost. That will be difficult, but it can be done. The industry must increase confidence. Confidence will return but, unfortunately, Conservative Members continue to run down the industry that they pretend to champion.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister accept that there is widespread dismay among the agricultural community in Wales about the level of support that the Welsh Office is able to give to the tir gofal scheme? Does he realise that that is an important instrument of social economic policy in Wales? Will he make it clear that the Government are committed to the scheme and will ensure that it is properly funded?
    Mr. Jones: The Government are committed to the scheme. The initial funding may not be as great as the hon. Gentleman would like, but it will increase year on year. It must be borne in mind that that funding is in addition to the £21 million-worth of aid that the farming package has released for Welsh farmers. The hon. Gentleman, if he represents people in the industry, should be thankful for the Government's support for Welsh farmers.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will list the special advisers he has appointed. [61566]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The Prime Minister has approved the appointment as special advisers of Mr. Gareth Williams, who has extensive experience in government at European and local level, and Ms Julie Crowley, who, I must make it clear, has been appointed for her communication skills, although she is also a fanatical supporter of Neath rugby club.
    Mr. Swayne: What advice will the right hon. Gentleman receive from those individuals? Would they
    312
    have been able to advise him on the wisdom of seeking election to the House in one constituency and to the Welsh Assembly in a different one?
    Mr. Michael: I am glad to say that both appointees are working on policy issues. They are working to deliver the Labour Government's election promises in Wales: to improve health, to create jobs, to increase opportunity, to improve education standards and to create safer communities. If the hon. Gentleman were interested in such issues, he would have asked about them, rather than simply trying to score points.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Peter Tapsell: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Throughout the day, I have been kept informed of developments in the efforts to establish the facts in the tragic and horrifying killing of the hostages in Chechnya. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing condolences to the families and friends of the victims.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is the right hon. Gentleman content with the ever-growing prospect of his being remembered as the Prime Minister who destroyed the United Kingdom and subjected England to foreign tax collectors?
    The Prime Minister: There speaks the authentic voice of today's Conservative party. No: we believe in the policies of devolution, we believe in a constructive attitude in Europe—and, actually, I would prefer to be remembered for having destroyed the Conservative party.
    Mr. David Chaytor: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a recent case at Bury general hospital, involving deaths following alleged misdiagnoses of cancer sufferers and the recall of 40 women for a review of their test results? Does he share my concern about the fact that, in such instances, the medical profession has an unfortunate habit of closing ranks? Does he agree that the case shows how important it is that nurses should be confident enough to report their anxieties to senior management, and also shows the importance of improved quality control in regard to consultants' records? Can he assure us that the Government are committed to improving that quality control?
    The Prime Minister: As well as putting extra money into cancer services in the NHS, we shall introduce a new system in the national health service Bill. The aim of that system will be to monitor the quality of decisions, to offer advice, and to give us the best chance of ensuring that the tragic events to which my hon. Friend has referred are not

    313
    repeated. It is important for us to introduce those proper quality controls, so that people can have faith in their diagnoses.
    Mr. William Hague: After all the bluster that we have heard from the Government about harmonising European taxes, is it not amazing that the letter that the Prime Minister signed this morning, along with the German Chancellor, fails to rule out the harmonising of capital taxes, fails to rule out the harmonisation of savings taxes, fails to rule out the harmonisation of value-added taxes and calls explicitly for more harmonisation of corporate taxes? Is this not the latest attempt to cover up the threat of tax harmonisation with meaningless reassurances and waffle?
    The Prime Minister: In the matter of bluster, I recognise when I have met my match. As for taxes, we have made our position clear. We will oppose any measure that is against Britain's national interests, in taxes or in any other regard. What we will not do is return to the years of Conservative diplomacy that left this country without influence at the margins of Europe. We will not do that, because it is not in the British national interest.
    Mr. Hague: Has the Prime Minister seen what the German Government have been saying to the French press over recent hours? A Bonn official, who asked not to be named, said that Germany was also hoping in Vienna for progress towards harmonising taxes, as Germany is a high-tax, high-regulatory state, while countries such as Britain can be more attractive to businesses because they have lower taxes and fewer regulations. Where is the Prime Minister's diplomacy when that is the actual agenda of the German Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore come clean and tell the House the Commons which British tax reliefs the Financial Secretary is now negotiating to harmonise away?
    The Prime Minister: The only Government who agreed to harmonise taxes in the UK were the last Conservative Government, just as they agreed more qualified majority voting than any Government have done before or since. I repeat: we will judge every issue according to the British national interest. We have no intention of agreeing to raise taxes across Europe. We want a lower tax burden on our people, but the way in which to get that argument through is to win the argument by staying firm and engaged, not by glorying in it, as the Conservative party is doing as an excuse to indulge its anti-Europeanism.
    Mr. Hague: Nothing that the Prime Minister has done remotely resembles standing firm. If he will not tell the House what is actually being negotiated, we will, because we have the list here: the shipping tax relief that he voted for; the film tax relief that he introduced; the enterprise zones that his constituents work in. Those are currently being negotiated. No wonder the European tax Commissioner says that the Government are "fully on board" with tax harmonisation. Is not the Prime Minister's endless habit of saying one thing to one audience and another to another finally catching up with him? Is not the truth that, however much he protests, no one believes him on that subject any more?
    The Prime Minister: First, the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises are from the code of conduct
    314
    working party on tax. The code of conduct working party was established under the previous Government. Secondly, as for what the rest of Europe thinks, let me give him just a sample of what the rest of Europe is saying. The French Prime Minister said:
    "Neither the French nor the British have any thought about unifying taxes. Harmonisation does not mean uniform tax. Nobody wants somebody else to choose for his country corporation tax or income tax."
    The Irish Deputy Prime Minister said:
    "Instead of calling for what would effectively be higher corporate taxes, European leaders should be concentrating on bringing corporate and other taxes down."
    The Spanish Prime Minister said that higher taxes
    "would be a recipe for inefficiency and higher costs."
    The Italian Finance Minister said that the harmonisation of corporation tax
    "would be untimely, questionable and above all hardly feasible".
    The European employers said:
    "Tax competition is the only counterweight against the constant upward pressure on Government revenues."
    There is a debate going on in the European Union, but what is important is not to exercise the old Tory tactic of using the debate as an excuse to get out of Europe. We should use it rather as an opportunity to make the case for a sensible Europe for all our futures.
    Mr. Hague: What does our Prime Minister say? One thing in one place—in the House of Commons—and another thing in the Council of Ministers. The people who are driving tax harmonisation are the European socialist politicians whom he has encouraged for years. We have only to look at the Foreign Secretary's biography:
    "Cook finished his long day"—
    Labour Members will be interested in this—
    "with a visit to Oskar Lafontaine at the headquarters of the SPD. Lafontaine"
    is
    "an old friend from the Socialist International … The two gave each other a bear hug, for old times' sake."
    Anyone who is prepared to give the Foreign Secretary a bear hug is capable of harmonising the taxes of the United Kingdom.
    Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the words of Oskar Lafontaine,
    "our British colleagues have asked us not to use the word harmonisation, but co-ordination"?
    Is it not clear from that remark that harmonisation and co-ordination mean exactly the same?
    The Prime Minister: The moment the right hon. Gentleman gets back to his debating points, he reckons he is on strong ground. As he is quoting, perhaps it would be best if I quoted to him the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said:
    "The next time that I have a discussion with William, I shall seek to reassure him that the views of Oskar Lafontaine are not likely to be the views of the European Union."
    That is what the Conservative former Chancellor said.
    The truth of the matter—and the strategic error that the right hon. Gentleman has made—is that the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is running Conservative European policy. That is where the

    315
    Conservative party is today. It has decided that it wants to be an anti-European party, and it will get support from certain quarters for that.
    The Conservatives can have that support. I will defend the British national interest—that is the difference between us—because it requires this country to be part of Europe. It is important that we are a part of Europe. Whatever smart debating points the Leader of the Opposition makes in this debate, the truth is that his position would return us to the years of Conservative isolation. There is no better example of that than the beef war. Two years of Conservative diplomacy; a declared war on Europe; no result. Eighteen months of Labour Government; the ban lifted. End of story.
    Mr. Hague rose—
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hague: Whenever the Prime Minister mentions smart debating points, we know that he has none of his own, and he has just shown that again. There is nothing anti-European about believing that we should decide our taxes here in the House of Commons. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman now has to ask the Germans to use a different word. He has become the Basil Fawlty of Europe. Every time he meets a German, he goes around saying, "Don't mention the tax harmonisation." The letter that I have here is yet another example of his giving one impression in Europe and another in the United Kingdom. We have no guarantees that any commitment that he makes in the House he will keep in the Council of Ministers; that any principle to which he was attached last week is a principle to which he is attached this week; or that we can be confident that any promise he makes now he will stand by tomorrow.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting very far on this matter. I simply repeat that there is a debate in Europe about the future direction of Europe. There is a debate about economic reform, and tax is a part of it. We will win that debate if we stay firm but stay engaged. The choice is between two different approaches to Europe. The only Government who agreed to tax harmonisation were a Conservative Government. For example, at the Vienna summit this week, we will ask that the duty free issue be reopened. Why do we have to ask that? Because the Conservative Government agreed to harmonisation and the abolition of duty free. We will try to get our way by staying firm to the British national interest, but staying engaged in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman has given in to the Euro-sceptic wing of his party, which is running his policy. He wants to glory in every obstacle in Europe because it is an excuse to be anti-European. We see those obstacles as things to be overcome because it is in this country's interests to be part of Europe. That is the difference between us.
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will incorporate a new clause into the fairness at work legislation—the right of hereditary peers to claim unfair
    316
    dismissal when they are sacked simply for pursuing the objectives of their employer? Furthermore, will he ensure that in such cases the compensation cap is withdrawn?
    The Prime Minister: Lord Cranborne said to the Leader of the Opposition, "Back me or sack me", and the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in doing both.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I hate to change the subject, but is the Prime Minister aware that more than 300,000 pensioners whose incomes are too low for them to pay tax are still waiting for the Treasury to decide whether, as promised, there will be a rethink on the Budget decision to remove from them a tax refund worth on average £75 to each of them? Is the Paymaster General still dealing with the matter?
    The Prime Minister: No. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already made it clear that we shall let those pensioners know as soon as a decision has been reached, but a whole series of issues has to be decided alongside that and we shall deal with the matter as soon as we possibly can.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that, as I have a letter from the Treasury less than two months old indicating that the Paymaster General is still dealing with the matter. Indeed, six months ago the Paymaster General himself promised that it would be dealt with "as soon as possible". Is it not clear that there is confusion over the matter and that the price of the Prime Minister's desire to preserve a lame-duck Minister is now being paid out of some of the poorest pockets in the land? For their sake if for no other, is it not now time to resolve the matter?
    The Prime Minister: We shall make the decision as soon as we possibly can. We have said that and we shall keep to it.
    Miss Anne Begg: As a young person struggling to walk, I had cause to be grateful to the Motability scheme for supplying me with a car, which transformed my life. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the previous Labour Government, and Alf Morris in particular, on introducing the Motability scheme and Motability, which will hand over its millionth car this week? Can he assure me that the present Labour Government will continue to pursue policies that will make it easier for disabled people to play a full part in society?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to participate in the events surrounding the 21st anniversary of Motability. I am happy to pay tribute to the previous Labour Government, and Lord Morris in particular. As my hon. Friend will know, the extra money provided under the new deal to help disabled people to work—almost £200 million—will be well used. The disability rights commission, on which we intend to legislate in the coming Session, will also make sure that the barriers to disabled people playing a full part in society are removed.
    Mr. Richard Page: The Prime Minister will be aware of the distress and hurt felt by Maxwell pensioners, hundreds of whom live in my constituency, when they learned that

    317
    Robert Maxwell had stolen their pension funds. As more of Robert Maxwell's activities are revealed—and bearing in mind that he was a former Labour Member and an enthusiastic Labour supporter—can the Prime Minister assure the House that all the Administration have clean hands as regards dealing with that crook?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, he should supply it.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as people await the decision of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, it is worth reflecting on the difference that the independence of that body has made and comparing the present position with that of 10 years ago, at the same point in the economic cycle, when there were 1 million more people unemployed than today, when inflation was twice what it is today, when interest rates were 13 per cent. and when we had a Tory Government?
    The Prime Minister: We are, of course, hitting the inflation target, and long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for more than 30 years. The reason why we are able to achieve that is that we have in place Bank of England independence and proper controls on spending that allow us to keep public finances under control and put an extra £40 billion into our schools and hospitals. As the deputy leader of the Conservative party repeated just a few days ago, the Conservatives are against Bank of England independence, and we know that they are against our spending proposals. We are in a better position this economic cycle precisely because we have pursued the policies that they oppose.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Can the Prime Minister give me three good reasons why the Paymaster General should remain in office?
    The Prime Minister: I have always said, first, that anybody who is guilty of serious wrongdoing will be dismissed. I have secondly, however, made it clear that I will always, with any Minister, go on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of what the media say or what the Conservative Opposition say.
    Angela Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the independent panel for special educational needs has branded Essex county council one of the worst in the country for supporting pupils with special needs? Is he further aware that one of the worst problems that that causes is delays in assessment which mean that children cannot reach their full potential? Can he assure the House that the Government will provide that all children, especially the most vulnerable—even those in the Tory-led Essex county council area—will be given full support by the Government to help them reach their potential? What action can he take to ensure that Essex county council fulfils its obligations?
    The Prime Minister: The Government expect all local authorities to meet the needs of young people with special educational needs. We have given Essex county council an extra £29 million for education—an increase of almost 6 per cent. The Government have launched a £60 million action plan for pupils with special educational needs—
    318
    a doubling of the central funding available. There is no reason at all why the needs of those children should not be properly looked after. I stress to my hon. Friend that it is an investment when we pay that money over to councils and they use it properly. Those children have abilities and, if we give them the right support, those abilities can flourish. I expect and hope that all councils will follow the Government's lead.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: Does the Prime Minister have any regrets about the clumsy and arrogant way in which his Government lectured Oskar Lafontaine, the German Finance Minister, about how best he might present European tax plans? Does he realise that that will not be allowed to hide the truth from the British people—that what our European partners really intend is tax rises for this country?
    The Prime Minister: The only way in which we shall get a serious debate on this issue is on the basis of fact. I have read out to the hon. Gentleman a list of leaders of other European countries who have made it clear that they do not support increasing taxes across Europe. On the contrary, they want to get taxes down. The hon. Gentleman has to come to terms with the psychology of the Conservative party today. Every time there is a problem in Europe or someone makes a remark in Europe, the Conservatives are desperate to use that as an excuse for their policy. It is not in the British national interest to adopt that attitude. It is in the British national interest to make sure that we win arguments in Europe, not use arguments as an excuse for turning our back on Europe.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Yesterday I visited the showroom of the Scottish Apparel Group here in London. I was told by the managing director of Traditional Weatherwear, manufacturers of high-quality waterproof clothing in my constituency, that the company had increased turnover by 30 per cent. and exports by 40 per cent. in the past six months. It has taken on 12 apprentices. Will not the attitude of the Opposition in talking down the economy damage the prospects of those young people and of hard-working manufacturers throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate the company to which my hon. Friend refers. The best way of dealing with whatever economic difficulties we face over the next year is to hold firm to the key policies that the Government set out: proper Bank of England independence, proper rules on public spending, extra investment in our future—particularly in education, skills and apprenticeships, as she rightly says—and making sure through the new deal and the working families tax credit that people have incentives to work. That is the best policy to weather any storm that comes.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Since 1985, Britain has saved tens of billions of pounds thanks to the hard-won rebate from the European Union. Under the previous Government, the EU rebate was not negotiable. Is the EU rebate still not negotiable, and how long will it remain so under this Government?
    The Prime Minister: Even in France—to deal with the point that was made earlier—I made it quite clear that

    319
    the British rebate will stay. It will stay because it is right and because, even after we take account of all the changes in Europe over the past few years, we are a net contributor above countries with higher incomes than ours. That is why it is right. I do not doubt that all sorts of other countries in Europe will put all sorts of things on the table and raise all sorts of issues. We shall raise some of our own issues as well, but I repeat that the best way to get the result that we want is to stay engaged in the debate, not to walk away from it.
    Ms Claire Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the first decade of the new millennium, for the first time in our history, the over-60s will begin to outnumber the under-18s? Does he agree that that will require a new policy approach to matters such as health, welfare, housing and work? Does he welcome the debate of the age campaign, which is holding an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall of the House and which will raise public awareness of that demographic shift and ensure that we start to make plans for the future?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome Age Concern's debate of the age—indeed, I have participated in it. It is excellent that we are looking at how the senior citizens of this country can play a part in all the various work of this country. As my hon. Friend will know, I make particular reference not only to the additional money that we are giving to the poorest pensioners, but to the free eye tests, concessionary travel and winter fuel payments that help some of the elderly. However, the importance of the debate of the age is that it can enable us to get the very best from senior citizens, who have an immense amount to contribute to this country, if they are given the chance to do so.

    Independent Nuclear Deterrent
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If it is his policy to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent until it is possible to verify the permanent abolition of all other countries' mass destruction weapons.
    The Prime Minister: We made it clear in the strategic defence review that, while large nuclear arsenals and the risk of proliferation exist, our minimum deterrent will remain a necessary element of our security.
    Dr. Lewis: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his belated conversion to the cause of nuclear deterrence, now that the danger has largely receded? Does he recall that, on a previous occasion when I asked him a question, he evaded it by referring back 20 years, to my past membership of an extremely dodgy organisation—the Labour party—in the 1970s? Will he now clear up a mystery about his membership of an even more dodgy organisation in the 1980s? Will he tell the House, once
    320
    and for all, why, at the height of the cold war, he belonged to the Campaign for—unilateral—Nuclear Disarmament; when he finally decided to leave it; and why, as recently as 1994, he allowed his office repeatedly and wrongly to deny that he had ever even been a member of it?
    The Prime Minister: We can see why they are such an effective Opposition. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations to me, but all I can say is that my congratulations go to the Labour party for having had the sense to get rid of him.

    Engagements
    Mr. David Borrow: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report of the Trade and Industry Committee on car prices paid in the United Kingdom, which are excessive compared with those in the rest of the European Union? Will he assure me that he will take every opportunity to ensure that UK car purchasers will no longer be ripped off and that they will pay the same price as purchasers in the rest of the EU?
    The Prime Minister: The Government welcome the Trade and Industry Committee's report. We are particularly interested in its proposals that would enable car buyers in this country to have access to lower prices such as those currently available on the continent. Under the new Competition Act 1998, there will be financial penalties of up to 10 per cent. of UK turnover for firms that infringe the prohibitions. I am confident that those new powers will be effective. I believe that, with the new powers in the Competition Act, we shall be able to take action in the interests of Britain's consumers.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anger and dismay felt in Wales at the way in which he and his colleagues are trying to place a centralist straitjacket on almost every aspect of the National Assembly for Wales? If the membership, leadership and policies of the National Assembly are subject to a London veto, what on earth is the point of setting it up in the first place?
    The Prime Minister: First of all, they are not. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has been campaigning for years and years for an Assembly in Wales. We give him an Assembly in Wales, and he still complains. It will be for the people of Wales to decide which party should run the Assembly in Wales. However, given the extra support that we are managing to give schools and hospitals and given what we can do for jobs and industry in Wales, I believe that the Welsh people will back us. It would be good once in a while to get a bit of gratitude from the right hon. Gentleman for having delivered what he has wanted for so very long.

Chechnya
3.31 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the tragic killings of three Britons yesterday in Chechnya.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): It is my sad duty to inform the House that Russian Interior Minister Stepashin confirmed to our ambassador in Moscow last night that, as we had feared, the remains found in Chechnya on 8 December were those of Darren Hickey, Peter Kennedy, Rudolf Petschi and Stanley Shaw, the four kidnap victims abducted in Grozny on 3 October. Three of the victims were British nationals and one was from New Zealand. We express our condolences to all the families and to the New Zealand Government.
We are deeply saddened and angered by these barbaric and senseless murders. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary this morning met Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov, who passed on the condolences of the Russian Government. During that meeting, the Foreign Secretary asked Foreign Minister Ivanov to speak directly with President Maskhadov, the Chechen President, so that we can find out exactly what happened to the hostages and ensure that the perpetrators of that wicked crime are pursued and brought to justice.
The victims were innocent people who were working to help to rebuild Chechnya's war-ravaged infrastructure. Our first thoughts must be for the families of the victims. We can only begin to imagine the anguish that they must be suffering at this devastating news. The Foreign Office, the police and the victims' employers are in close contact with the families to provide whatever help and advice they can at this most traumatic time. My noble Friend Baroness Symons, who has responsibility for consular affairs in the Foreign Office, will speak to the families later today. We are also in close contact with the New Zealand Government, who share our grief at this appalling act, and with the employers of the victims, whom I met at the Foreign Office earlier today.
The precise details of the incidents leading up to the tragic murders remain unclear. It seems likely that the victims were killed as a consequence of fighting between rival Chechen forces. However, I would not wish to, and cannot, speculate any further until the facts are known properly. I believe that it is right that the families of the victims should be the first to know, as soon as we are able to establish, what happened. I assure the House that every effort is being made to get to the truth.
The unstable and confused situation in Chechnya will not make that task easy. The Russian authorities admit that their writ does not run into Chechnya and the Chechen authorities are not in control of the situation. Chechnya remains extremely unsafe for British officials and it would be irresponsible to endanger any more British lives by sending our officials to that area. However, we are working closely with the Russian authorities through our embassy in Moscow and through high-level contacts with senior members of the Russian Government. Our ambassador in Moscow met Russian Interior Minister Stepashin earlier today.
322
Since the kidnapping took place, the Foreign Office has been active in seeking the release of the hostages. We sought to make progress particularly through our contacts with both the Russian and Chechen authorities. We have also kept in close touch with the company and the families. Granger Telecom took the lead on the ground in accordance with the wishes of the families and in recognition of its strong links, through commercial contacts, in Chechnya. In the light of these tragic and brutal murders, we shall still co-operate with all concerned, but our first priority is to have the remains of the deceased returned to their families.
We have made it clear that we need to know what happened and what is being done to bring to justice those who committed these repugnant murders. The Government will not rest until the perpetrators of this monstrous crime have been punished.
In conclusion, it is right and proper that I should repeat the FCO's earlier pleas to all British companies, non-governmental organisations and individuals not to go to Chechnya. It is not safe. The British, Russian and Chechen authorities cannot guarantee the safety of foreigners. British citizens should not go there under any circumstances.
Mr. Keetch: I thank the Minister and Prime Minister for sending their condolences to the families, and I am sure that the whole House will join them in that. It is the families' urgent wish that the hostages' remains should be returned as soon as possible for Christian burial. I support the Minister's efforts to achieve that through the Russian Government and the Chechen authorities.
Now that the Chechen authorities have today confirmed that the killings were part of a bungled rescue attempt, will the Minister assure the House that at no stage in the future will he support the sending of British nationals to Chechnya? Does he agree that any company wishing to send its employees to such a troubled zone should be dissuaded from doing so?
Is the Minister aware that Granger Telecom, the employer of the deceased, has said that it received unclear advice from the Foreign Office? Will he tell the House what that advice was and assure us that the advice was given to the employees? Will he also tell the House what security was provided for the employees while they were in Chechnya? Will he again stress that no British citizen should go to that God-forsaken country?
Mr. Lloyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to convey their condolences to the families.
The advice that the Foreign Office has given consistently to all concerned, including Granger Telecom, is clear and unambiguous. It is simply that to operate in Chechnya is to put British lives at risk and that British citizens should not travel in that region. Tragically, these events bear out the wisdom of that advice.
We do not know the exact details of the circumstances in which the lives were taken. We know of rumours but, unfortunately, rumours abound in Chechnya. We had no notice of any attempt to rescue the hostages and we would not have advised such an attempt, given the danger that

323
would inevitably be involved. Our priority was always the safety of the four individuals. Our advice, which is still consistent, is that no Briton should travel to that region.
Mr. Philip Hammond: On behalf of Mrs. Lilly Shaw, I too thank the Minister for his expression of sympathy and thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for taking the lead in the case of Mr. Stanley Shaw, who, although a constituent of mine, is a citizen of New Zealand.
This is not a time for recrimination or blame. Granger Telecom is based in my constituency and I ask the Minister to acknowledge the active, key role taken by the company over the past couple of months in seeking to secure the hostages' release.
Will the Minister confirm that the advice to which he referred, which was given to the company, principally consisted of drawing the company's attention to the published advice to travellers? As of today, that advice lists 16 countries, including Sudan, Algeria and Sri Lanka, to which travellers are advised not to travel under any circumstances. British companies are doing business in many of those countries. Has the Minister reviewed all the internal correspondence at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and all the records of conversations between his Department and the company? Is he absolutely sure that the company was sent an unambiguous message from the British Government about its presence in Chechnya? I have visited the company since the tragic events took place, and I formed the impression that the message sent from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was not in totality as unambiguous as the Minister would have the House believe.
Mr. Lloyd: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's message to his constituents and their family.
I stick by the information that I have given the hon. Gentleman previously. The advice was unambiguous. I must point out that Granger Telecom met Foreign Office officials directly and did not come to talk about other countries such as Sudan. I do not want to get into a slanging match across the Dispatch Box, but I repeat that I am absolutely of the view that the advice given was specific and could not have been misinterpreted.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On behalf of the Opposition, I join the Minister in expressing anger and outrage at the brutal, cold-blooded murders of Darren Hickey, Peter Kennedy, Rudolf Petschi, and Stanley Shaw. I agree with the Minister that the House's thoughts and sympathy must go first and foremost to their families who are having to come to terms with these senseless killings in the war-torn region that the men were helping to rebuild.
I thank the Minister for the details that he has given of the discussions that his Department is having with the authorities in Moscow, but will he give us a better idea of what British resources he expects to put at the Russian authorities's disposal to establish who was responsible for this atrocity? Will he also tell us, perhaps in an effort to clarify what was known by the Foreign Office, when he knew that there were separate negotiations over the release of these men, and whether the Foreign Office was consulted about them?
324
Will the Minister confirm reports that the company advising on negotiations with the kidnappers was Control Risks and say whether he had any contact with that company? Will he further confirm, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked him to, that his Department really did provide clear and unambiguous advice to Granger Telecom and that the Department of Trade and Industry was also providing advice to companies operating in Chechnya? If so, could copies of that advice be made available?
Will the Minister say how, in the advice that he gives to companies, he distinguishes between countries that are dangerous and countries that are potentially lethal? Are there any other British or Commonwealth citizens in the Chechen Republic? If so, what advice have they been given, and are there any plans to help them leave the republic safely? Will he comment on reports that 10 people are still being held in captivity in Chechnya?
Finally, in the light of these tragic deaths, what lessons can be learned? Will the Minister be changing the Foreign Office procedures for informing companies about the dangers of operating in hostile regions?
Mr. Lloyd: Let me say once again as forcefully as I can that I have absolutely no doubt that the advice given was unambiguous and clear and could lead only to the conclusion that Chechnya was too dangerous a place in which to operate and that British citizens should not have been there. There is no question of reviewing the nature of that advice. It is already very clear and still stands for anyone who seeks our advice and, indeed, for anyone who ignores it.
We are aware of, I think, two other British citizens still in Chechnya. Our advice to them and those working with them has again been clear and direct, especially in the light of the taking of the hostages. Our advice to that organisation was clear and continues to be clear.
On resources offered to the Russians, I repeat that it is a matter of practical reality that the writ of the Russian authorities does not easily run in Chechnya. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary asked Foreign Minister lvanov to communicate with Chechen President Maskhadov in order that the Chechen authorities should begin to pursue the question of what happened and to bring those responsible for it to justice. We shall seek to bring our influence to bear at that level.
The British Government's position on the question of hostages and ransom demands has always been very clear. We do not pay ransoms. The Government confirmed that policy, which obtained under the previous Government, at an early stage. In the interests of British citizens, that is right. Nor do we advise others to pay ransom. As a Government, we were not involved in any negotiations.
Granger Telecom communicated with those responsible for taking the hostages and has been active in seeking the release of such hostages. As the issue must initially be one for the company, I am not in a position to provide any details of the process of those negotiations. At this stage, it is right and proper that information should be made available to the families before it comes into the public domain. The company has agreed with me that the families are entitled to the utmost frankness in the provision of whatever information they need to cope with their almost insupportable loss.
Mrs. Angela Browning: May I thank the Minister for his condolences to Rudi Petschi and his family, who lived in my constituency? The Minister said that he will investigate the matter. These callous and tragic deaths deserve a thorough investigation that will assist us should we ever need to go through anything similar again.
I draw the Minister's attention to a specific piece of information which deserves scrutiny. He said that the Foreign Office had no warning that an attempt was to be made to rescue the hostages. I know how difficult it is to unscramble messages about what happened. However, yesterday, the Russian section of the BBC monitoring service in Caversham supplied me with a statement that it released at 0615 hours on Sunday from the head of the Chechen security services, which identifies that they knew where the hostages were—in a hamlet on Russian soil close to the Chechen border—and anticipated that Russian forces were likely to mount a rescue. Clearly, that needs to be investigated. Given that that information was in the public domain at 6.15 am on Sunday, will the Minister investigate why the Foreign Office did not know about the threat until the news broke yesterday?
Mr. Lloyd: I thank the hon. Lady, too, for her opening remarks. I recognise that for her, as for others with a constituency interest, this is a difficult time. The four Members of Parliament who are most directly involved saw me some weeks ago precisely because they wanted to express their concern.
The hon. Lady must accept that Chechnya is a region where there is almost daily rumour, claim and counterclaim. Rather sadly, there is nothing unusual about the report that she read out. Such a report does not necessarily lead immediately to any practical action. I am aware of such statements, and certainly undertake to get to the bottom of the matter in order to piece together a proper picture of what happened and to see whether there are lessons to be learned.
In the context of the Chechnya of today, we are not dealing with a state organised in the way that we would expect elsewhere. We are dealing with a situation where banditry is the rule of law; unfortunately, our citizens were murdered by precisely that banditry.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Minister will be aware that the parents of Darren Hickey work and live in my constituency, and I am grateful to the Minister for his condolences, which I obviously share. The Hickeys have been through a very difficult time, as have the families of the other hostages, and no news was easily available. I appreciate the fact that the Minister explained the difficulty that our embassy in Moscow has in contacting people in Chechnya.
First, will the Minister—without again going into the details of what form of notice might have been given to the company—accept that the contract was a very substantial contract to a very serious company, Granger Telecom, which it was carrying out in association with a BT engineer; and that, therefore, the Government must have at least been aware of its significance, in the middle of Chechnya, bearing in mind its situation vis-a-vis Russia?
Secondly, was any guidance or advice given to the Chechen authorities as they started their search for these four people? Were any military offers of assistance given
326
in terms of advice? It would not be the first time that that had happened, but it is something that it would be good for the House—and for the parents—to understand.
Finally, is there any way that we can achieve better communications with Chechnya? What is the current situation with Russia? What lessons do we need to learn? Some other parts of the former Soviet Union are in considerable disarray; I believe that the Foreign Office must now clarify its guidance to workers on key contracts won by British companies, if there is any thought that those workers might be at risk elsewhere in that region.
Mr. Lloyd: While I recognise the importance of the contract for those companies involved, I must again repeat the clear, unambiguous advice offered by the Foreign Office—that British citizens should not operate in that area. In the end, as a Government of a free society, we have no power to compel our citizens, beyond offering such advice. Clearly, I have taken the opportunity, and will take the opportunity, to repeat to all concerned that Chechnya is a dangerous place; British citizens simply should not be there. However, I would also tell the House that it was not simply a matter of the exchange of notes. Granger Telecom did meet Foreign Office officials, who gave that advice in those very clear terms. There is no ambiguity in all this. I believe that I have now said that a significant number of times, and I hope that the House will accept that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our relations with the Chechen authorities. No, we did not offer any military support. We had no easy way on the ground of knowing where the four hostages were. The flow of information was almost non-existent; in those circumstances, our advice would have availed but little.
Obviously, in any situation, we shall always consider the best way of releasing our citizens, and different circumstances may well offer different possibilities. However, in this specific case, a British military intervention would have been extremely dangerous, and would have placed further British lives at risk. Moreover, I do not believe that I could have guaranteed that the result would have been what those advocating that course sought.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: This is a dreadful crime. It puts one in mind of the hostage-taking that took place in the middle east a decade or so ago. Does the Minister agree—he has said so, really—that hostage-taking is encouraged by the payment of ransoms? Will he therefore accept our very strong support for his statement that no ransoms should be paid; and will he accept that the British Government will never be party to the payment of ransoms? Will he do his utmost to encourage Governments of other countries to adopt the same policy, and will he do his best to discourage all parties from even considering the payment of ransoms?
Mr. Lloyd: I am genuinely grateful for that intervention because it raises a matter of the utmost importance, which is that there is no advantage in a system where hostages are taken and ransom is systematically paid. That simply encourages the taking of hostages. All experience throughout the world demonstrates the proof of that. The continuation of a policy that makes it clear to all the parties that, as a Government, we will not pay or sanction the payment of

327
ransoms is important, and it is important that it be clear and understood. Yes, of course, we seek, and will continue to seek, the co-operation of other Governments in pursuing exactly that same policy.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Minister for the sensitive and sombre way in which he has been answering questions. Would he join me in urging right hon. and hon. Members to have some sympathy for the position in which the leadership in Chechnya finds itself? It is under threat from Chechen bandits, Muslim fundamentalists and the Russians, whose terrible bombardment of their country led to the chaos that is there. Will the Minister agree with me that it is understandable that the leadership in Chechnya is desperate to have help from the west to rebuild the country, and that we should pay tribute to those men who were brave enough to try to help it?
Mr. Lloyd: There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's comments about the difficulties facing the ordinary citizen of Chechnya and the Chechen Government have much merit. The situation of the Chechen Government is indeed far from normal governance.
We would draw strongly to the attention of the Chechen authorities the fact that, if they want assistance in the reconstruction of their country, it is vital that such horrific murders be brought to a conclusion by the successful arrest and prosecution of those concerned. Without that, countries like Britain, and Britain itself, will not be confident that the situation in Chechnya will ever be one where we are able practically to assist.

Point of Order
3.57 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for bothering you, but may I seek your advice on the position of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Members which arises from an interesting memorandum submitted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, entitled "Procedural Consequences of Devolution"? Paragraph 5 states:
"To assist the House to become more familiar with matters which will no longer be the responsibility of the relevant Secretaries of State, it is proposed that from the start of the 1998–99 Session Ministers will, where practical, indicate in their answers to questions and in debate when they are dealing with subjects they will not be responsible for after devolution."
I make no complaint, but I understand that this advice was not followed in Scottish questions yesterday or in Welsh questions today. I wondered whether, through you, Madam Speaker, we might find a way forward. I think that many Members who will be affected by these issues would like the recommendation to be acted on. I wondered whether, through you, I might find a means of encouraging Ministers to follow my right hon. Friend's recommendation.
Madam Speaker: I think that the point of order will be noted by those on the Treasury Bench, which will perhaps go some way to helping the hon. Gentleman with his query. I am sure he knows that it is entirely a matter for Ministers how they answer questions. Responses to questions have nothing to do with me. He might consider tabling a question to the President of the Council on this matter. At least that would draw the matter to the attention of the Leader of the House and the whole House, so that Members can read the document for themselves.

Opposition Day
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Decommissioning and Prisoner Releases
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.59 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move,
  That this House supports the Belfast Agreement and reasserts that the Agreement has to be implemented in all its parts; believes that several things must happen in parallel in order to build confidence, whether it be decommissioning or the release of prisoners; notes that the only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good and that decommissioning is part of that; notes that since July over 200 terrorist prisoners have been released early while decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives has yet to begin; and believes that there should be no further early releases of prisoners, and no place in the Northern Ireland Executive for their representatives in the Assembly, until there has been substantial and verifiable decommissioning.
  It is worth saying that, seven months after the signing of the historic Belfast agreement on Good Friday, it is right and proper that the House of Commons should review the progress of the agreement. This is an excellent opportunity to do so. It is clear that there is grave concern in our constituencies and in the Province about the lack of decommissioning of illegally held weapons and the fact that so many terrorist prisoners have been released early. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Opposition, on the first Supply day of the new Session, have tabled this motion.
  To pre-empt any intervention by Government Back Benchers, I wish to say that we fully recognise the huge advantages gained from a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland wherever possible. By and large, we benefited from that bipartisan policy when we were in government, but noted that, on occasions—especially each year when we sought to renew the emergency provisions legislation—we failed to gain the support of the Opposition.
  Wherever possible, we support the Government in the bipartisan policy, but I have always maintained clearly to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that I cannot give them a blank cheque, and nor should I. It is our constitutional duty as the Opposition to speak out when we believe that the Government are doing something wrong, and to question further when answers are not satisfactory. That we have done, will do again this afternoon, and will continue to do.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I rise to intervene with some diffidence, given the right hon. Gentleman's comments about interventions by Government Back Benchers. Does he agree with the assessment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force are maintaining a complete ceasefire, or does he hold a different view?
  Mr. MacKay: I will answer that point directly. The Secretary of State has the benefit of the best security advice available, and it is that those organisations are maintaining a ceasefire. I accept that, but later in my remarks I shall make the point that renunciation of violence must include—as the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have said continually—the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives.
  The hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these affairs, and I am sure that he agrees that, although large-scale violence is not taking place, intimidation and so-called punishment beatings are still occurring in the Province. That is very serious, and the Secretary of State has said that, if any evidence could be passed to her, the security services and especially the Royal Ulster Constabulary would pursue it. The hon. Gentleman cannot comfortably accept that there is a total ceasefire in all forms when such intimidation takes place on certain estates on both sides of the sectarian divide.
  My party supports the Belfast agreement, because it is the extension of a process that was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and Lord Mayhew during the previous Administration. It has been continued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister, and has led to the signing of the agreement. Without repeating what I said at the time of the agreement, I believe that it represents the best chance and opportunity for lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: The right hon. Gentleman says that he supports the Belfast agreement, but the motion tries to create a link between prisoners and decommissioning that does not exist in the agreement. Is not the effect of the motion to undermine the agreement, even if that is not his intention?
  Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should take a bit more note of what the Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box. In answer to questions from me during Northern Ireland questions in October, she rightly said that prisoner release and decommissioning should go in parallel. In answer to questions from Opposition Members on 2 December, she said:
  "Let me make our position absolutely clear: decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement; it is not a precondition but an obligation."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 867.]
  She is absolutely right. I support her in that respect. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had done the same.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The issue of linkage is fundamental, as I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree. Was not one of the Mitchell principles that no one was allowed to take part in the peace discussions unless they had forsworn violence for good? Yet we know that, since the Good Friday agreement and beforehand, many paramilitary groups, particularly the IRA, have been involved in many beatings and, in the case of the IRA, the murder of a man called Andrew Kearney in Belfast. Is not that the linkage? It has been linkage throughout, yet some now try to deny it.
  Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I underline that point by quoting the Prime Minister at the

  331
  Dispatch Box in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. On 6 May, he said:
  "Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that, of course".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
  I entirely agree with the Prime Minister. The renunciation of violence itself is not enough without decommissioning.
  Mr. John Gunnell: It is right for the right hon. Gentleman to seek a debate on an issue on which there is some debate to be had, but does he intend to put the matter to the vote? It seems unreasonable to put on public record a division of this sort—something which we did not do in opposition. That could be harmful to the agreement. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think seriously about that. I would be unhappy if I had to vote on the matter.
  Mr. MacKay: I can answer the hon. Gentleman clearly. We had expected, hoped and assumed that our motion would not need a vote, but would be passed by the House. As we now see an amendment on the Order Paper, I suspect, Madam Speaker, that you might well be calling a Division at about 7 o'clock.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we should not have votes on matters concerning Northern Ireland. I wish that he and his colleagues had taken that advice when, year in and year out, they ratted on emergency provisions and prevention of terrorism legislation, when bombs were going off here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, murdering innocent people. At best they abstained, and at worst they voted against such legislation. They were soft on terrorism. I am glad that they have now changed. I had not intended to raise this. They have chosen to do so. The facts and the votes recorded in Hansard speak for themselves.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman seems to want it both ways on bipartisanship, and now he seems to have an a la carte approach to the Belfast agreement. He knows perfectly well that the whole House, and certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, are completely committed to the whole agreement, including decommissioning, so why on earth does he even contemplate voting against the Government on the issue, knowing what message that will convey on the island of Ireland?
  Mr. MacKay: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that the simple truth is that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have always been right to say that the Belfast agreement cannot be cherry-picked. I am not cherry-picking; the paramilitaries are cherry-picking. We are backing the Belfast agreement, and anyone who does so should support our motion. As I deploy my arguments, the hon. Gentleman will see why.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacKay: This will be the last time for a while. No one else will be called to speak in the debate if we continue like this.
  Mr. Thomas: How many paramilitary weapons did the right hon. Gentleman's party manage to get
  332
  decommissioned? How many Opposition Supply day debates did we initiate on that subject? Does he not recognise that proper implementation of the Good Friday agreement—not attempting to rewrite it, as his party is seeking to do—is the best way to secure decommissioning?
  Mr. MacKay: That has confirmed my worst fears. That pathetic and irrelevant intervention is not fit for a response.
  At the time of the Belfast agreement, we were deeply uncomfortable about the early release of terrorist prisoners, as were the great majority of decent, law-abiding people in this country.
  Mr. Brian White: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacKay: I shall proceed a little.
  With the greatest reluctance, we swallowed our concerns, because we realised that early releases were part of a wider package. As the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister said at the time, it was not to be cherry-picked, and had to be seen in the round—complete.
  It is absolutely clear under the Good Friday agreement that paramilitaries whose political associates had signed the agreement would decommission all their illegally held arms and explosives over two years, and, at the same time, the Government—starting when the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 became law in July—would release terrorist prisoners early, providing that the Secretary of State was satisfied that they were not likely to return to violence or associate with other paramilitaries.
  What has happened? The Government—I do not quibble with this, as the Secretary of State knows—have released a number of terrorist prisoners early, to show good faith and that they were keeping their part of the Belfast agreement bargain. Seven months on, not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in, but more than 200 terrorist prisoners have been released early. To say the least, that is hugely disproportionate.
  Any reasonable person looking at the scene in Northern Ireland would say that, seven months on—more than a quarter of the way through the two-year decommissioning period—some weapons should have been handed in. After a mere three months of the two-year period for early release of terrorist prisoners, half have already been released.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether his speech will give more aid and comfort to those who voted for the agreement or to those who voted against?
  Mr. MacKay: The best aid and comfort that I can give to those who voted yes—I campaigned for a yes vote, along with the Secretary of State—is to make sure that the Prime Minister's pledges at the Balmoral agricultural show, and subsequently at the university of Ulster at Coleraine, are met. Having returned from the Province within the past few hours, I can tell the hon. Lady that a large number of people who voted yes feel deeply disillusioned and let down by the Prime Minister, because

  333
  they believe that pledges that he gave in the referendum campaign and from the Dispatch Box to the House of Commons have not yet been met.
  Mr. Stephen Day: Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the public, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom, are appalled and cannot understand the logic of continuing to release terrorists without the decommissioning of arms? They are bemused and puzzled. Many of my constituents have written to me about this issue, and are delighted that my right hon. Friend has had the courage to face reality.
  Mr. MacKay: I agree with my hon. Friend that any reasonable person would be perplexed, confused and disappointed that, seven months on, no guns or Semtex have been handed in, yet well over 200 terrorist prisoners have been released early. That is grossly disproportionate, and it calls into question whether any decommissioning will take place.
  Mr. White: Is it not true that, when the previous ceasefire took place, the Conservative Government released more prisoners? Prisoners were released when violent acts were still being carried out, whereas now there is no violence.
  Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Labour Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have a very limited memory of what happened in the previous Parliament. We increased remission to 50 per cent. to bring Northern Ireland law into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. That did not involve decommissioning, and it did not entail the two-thirds remission that is now in prospect. Under the agreement, every terrorist prisoner will be released within two years. The two situations are not comparable, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misled the House.
  It is worth while quoting the then Secretary of State during the Second Reading debate on 30 October 1995. He said:
  "The House will be reassured to know, however, that many of those who have been sentenced for the most heinous offences would under the provisions of the Bill remain in prison until at least the end of the first decade in the next century."—[Official Report, 30 October 1995; Vol. 265, c. 26.]
  That is not happening now. I do not quibble with that, but to make such comparisons is ill advised and a mistake.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that no comparison can be made, because many of the most serious criminals being released under the current scheme have been charged with murder and sentenced to life, whereas, under the previous arrangements, there was no remission for those sentenced to life imprisonment?
  Mr. MacKay: The hon. and learned Gentleman, with his considerable professional experience, is entirely right, and I concur with everything he says.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik rose—
  Mr. MacKay: I shall allow one last intervention, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) represents the Liberal Democrats on these matters.
  Mr. Öpik: Perhaps I can get the right hon. Gentleman back to his speech. Will he clarify an important point? He
  334
  said that many people in Northern Ireland were turning away from their decision to support the agreement. Will he confirm unequivocally that the Conservative party remains absolutely committed to the spirit and to the letter of the Good Friday agreement?
  Mr. MacKay: I am happy to confirm that, as I said at the beginning of my speech. The best way to reassure the doubters who voted yes but are now uncertain and disillusioned is to ensure that decommissioning takes place, and that the proposal in our motion is implemented. An increased number of people would then support the agreement, instead of being disillusioned.
  It would be remiss of me not to touch briefly on two other points. First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly, who this week collects his Nobel prize in Norway. He is absolutely right to say that he cannot, should not and will not appoint Sinn Fein Ministers to the Executive until substantial and verifiable decommissioning takes place.
  I hope that hon. Members throughout the House will agree that it is not possible to be a Minister in any part of the United Kingdom—in any free and democratic society—and run a Department and a country, or a province, while maintaining a fully armed private army. That is incompatible with democracy, and should be denounced from the House of Commons. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann will have our full support in not appointing Sinn Fein members as Ministers until there is substantial and verifiable decommissioning.
  My second point is not entirely connected with the motion, so I hope that you will bear with me, Madam Speaker. There has been further discussion in Downing street today about north-south bodies, and we naturally welcome that. I believe that resolution of the discussions on north-south bodies may well take some time, but that is not necessarily a problem: tough, hard bargaining is going on, and for my part I wish it to be left to the parties in Northern Ireland to resolve the problems. I believe that they will resolve those problems satisfactorily, but I am not so certain that the decommissioning issue will be resolved.
  It will not be a lack of resolution on north-south bodies and the setting up of institutions that brings down the process. I expect that to be achieved, albeit, perhaps, over longer than the next few days. What I fear is that, without decommissioning of weapons illegally held by the paramilitaries, not only will confidence in the process evaporate, but an Executive will not be set up, because—rightly, as I have said—the right hon. Member for Upper Bann will be unable to appoint Ministers whom, under the legislation, he would otherwise appoint from Sinn Fein.
  In the last week, the Prime Minister has replied in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I want to draw attention to a specific aspect of that letter. I ask the Under-Secretary of State, if he has the letter to hand, to look at the first paragraph on page 2, in which the Prime Minister writes—this is consistent, as it largely reiterates what the Secretary of State told me on the Floor of the House last week—
  "The best prospect of the completion of decommissioning within the two year period is by implementing the Agreement, and thereby removing all excuses from those in possession of arms."
  I take issue with the Prime Minister on that. It rings alarm bells. It leads me to believe that every single terrorist prisoner will be released without one ounce of

  335
  Semtex or one gun being handed in. Let me put this to the House. If we—heaven forbid—were Gerry Adams, or one of the Loyalist paramilitary leaders, and if all our prisoners were being released by the Government, what incentive would we have to hand in any guns or explosives?
  The last three sentences of our motion probably constitute the only part with which the Secretary of State disagrees. I hope so, because the rest consists entirely of direct quotations from the Prime Minister. The words
  "to be implemented in all its parts"
  are a quotation from what the Prime Minister said at Balmoral on 14 May. On 20 April, from the Dispatch Box, he used the words:
  "several things must happen in parallel in order to build confidence, whether it be decommissioning … the release of prisoners".— [Official Report, 20 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 484.]
  On 6 May, from the Dispatch Box, he said:
  "The only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good … Decommissioning is part of that".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
  I hope that, in the interests of consistency, Labour Members will support the motion. I presume that—because it is factually correct—the Secretary of State will also support our observation
  "that since July over 200 terrorist prisoners have been released early while decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives has yet to begin".
  That is factually correct. It is irrefutable.
  Ms Jean Corston: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacKay: No. I am concluding my speech now.
  Where the disagreement comes in is clear from the Prime Minister's response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. We say:
  "there should be no further early releases of prisoners, and no place in the Northern Ireland Executive for their representatives in the Assembly, until there has been substantial and verifiable decommissioning."
  By voting against and tabling the amendment, the Government must disagree with that.
  Unless the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister draw a line in the sand and say, "No further terrorist prisoners will be released until"—
  Ms Margaret Moran: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacKay: No. I have just said that I am concluding my speech.
  If the Secretary of State says that no further terrorist prisoners will be released until there is substantial and verifiable decommissioning, she has a real chance of getting decommissioning. If she does not do that, she will not.
  If the Secretary of State is going to say to me, "I will be in breach of the agreement," I respectfully say to her that I do not believe so. She has been more than
  336
  generous—as she knows, in my eyes, somewhat too generous—by already releasing more than 200 terrorist prisoners in the first three months of the two-year period in which she is entitled to do so. Their representatives have decommissioned nowt during the first seven months, so she is entitled to halt prisoner release until decommissioning takes place.
  I and my colleagues sincerely believe that the only way in which to obtain decommissioning from all the paramilitaries on both sides of the sectarian divide is to halt prisoner release. We also believe passionately that, unless there is substantial, real and viable decommissioning, the process that the Secretary of State and I support, which we started and which she has sustained, will be ruined. That would be the hugest possible pity for the people of Northern Ireland, so I call on the House to support our motion.
  4.27 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises that the Good Friday Agreement represents an historic opportunity to bring agreed government and political stability to Northern Ireland; acknowledges the progress which has been made by the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties in reaching and implementing the Agreement; and believes the only way forward for the people of Northern Ireland to find lasting peace is for the Governments and the parties to move urgently to implement every aspect of the Agreement in full."
  I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and I guarantee that, given the chance, I will answer every point that he has raised. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity that has been provided by the Opposition to discuss how the Good Friday agreement is being implemented.
  Like many of my colleagues—in view of the questions that they have asked—I believe that the agreement that was endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland and of the south represents the most significant development in Northern Ireland politics for a generation. By implementing it in full, there is a unique opportunity to build a peaceful future for all the people of Northern Ireland. I want to return later to what I think is the basic contradiction in the argument of the right hon. Member for Bracknell. He accepts the security advice that there is an unequivocal ceasefire involving three groups. That is the basis of the agreement. He cannot have it both ways by arguing that that ceasefire is not being maintained, but I will develop that argument later in response to his points.
  I welcome, too, the Opposition's support, in particular the help of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the right hon. Member for Bracknell and several of their lordships during the yes campaign. I also acknowledge the important role, which the right hon. Member for Bracknell mentioned, that was played by previous Governments in making the agreement possible.
  The previous Government took risks and they were right to do so. Their role was acknowledged clearly by Senator Mitchell during last week's Dimbleby lecture when he said:
  "The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 traces its lineage to the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and the Downing Street Declaration of 1993 … Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern were brilliant in bringing the process to conclusion, but they would be the first to acknowledge that it was their predecessors who set the stage."

  337
  They set the stage in terms of the agreement and, particularly, of two aspects of the agreement which the right hon. Member for Bracknell mentioned—decommissioning and prisoner releases—and to which the Opposition motion refers. They made those difficult choices, which started the process of bringing us to where we are today.
  The level of remission available to terrorist prisoners in Northern Ireland has changed alongside developments in the peace process in the past decade. Remission was reduced in 1989 following a particularly horrific year, in which 91 people were killed in Northern Ireland. In 1995, the situation improved. Although punishment beatings and killings continued and no progress was made on decommissioning, the Government of the day judged that the ceasefires were being maintained and that sufficient progress had been made to enable rates of remission to be increased to one half. The Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995 resulted in the accelerated release of about 240 prisoners and continued despite the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire. Therefore, the issue of the release of prisoners was not new when the parties agreed the provisions in the Good Friday agreement and remission rates were increased to two thirds in 1998.
  The desire to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons has also been a part of that process for many years. Again, its history can be traced to previous Governments; first, to the insistence that actual decommissioning would be a pre-condition for talks between loyalists and republicans to take place; then, to the abandonment of that pre-condition following the report of the international body in 1996. Again, the previous Government took a risk—one that paved the way for the opening of talks in June that year—and we fully supported their action.
  Decommissioning is an essential part of the Good Friday agreement. Under the agreement—in paragraph 3 on page 20—all participants
  "reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years … in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement".
  As a Government, our attitude to decommissioning is crystal clear. We want it to take place and we want it to start now.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is no comparison between those previous remissions—under which there was no remission for the most dangerous prisoners, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment—and the present scheme, which allowed the release of the murderers of the two corporals?
  Marjorie Mowlam: First, as I outlined in my introduction, what is happening is a progression from what happened with previous schemes under previous Governments. Secondly, the nature of the prisoner releases is a result of the Good Friday agreement and of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which followed from it, and laid down clear regulations and rules. For example, people should be allowed out on
  338
  licence for a specific period and, if they broke the licence, they would go back to prison. There are both similarities and differences.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady agree that, at the present rate of progress, there is a serious risk that all, or at least most, of the relevant prisoners will be released before a single weapon is decommissioned? Does that accord with her construction of the agreement? If it does not, when will she draw a line and say that no more prisoners are to be released until there has been substantial decommissioning?
  Marjorie Mowlam: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has implied, both those issues are dimensions of the present agreement. It has always been the case that progress has to be made in all parts of the agreement for it to work. If progress is not made on all dimensions together, the agreement will not work. It is important for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to remember that much work has been done on different dimensions of the agreement in the intervening months since it was drawn up and put to a referendum and when the first meeting of the Assembly was held, in July. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that he considers that there has been too much progress on one dimension and not enough on another. Of course it is uneven; anybody can see that, but it is important to remember that it takes time to implement the agreement. In the Dimbleby speech last week, Senator Mitchell said that reaching the agreement was difficult and that implementing it is also difficult. It is now important to make progress on all fronts and that will take time.
  Of course progress is faster on some aspects than on others. We have a shadow Executive, but not an Executive; we have dialogue on cross-border implementation bodies, but we do not have cross-border bodies. Progress is being made on some matters faster than on others. In my view, it is too early to call a halt on any aspect. The agreement has no preconditions and states that all aspects of it have to move in parallel. Attempts have been made to find a way forward for 12 weeks—since the summer recess. Opposition Members are too quick to attempt to call a halt to one dimension of the agreement.
  Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Of course I understand what she is saying to the House and that she is anxious to retain the Opposition's support for her policy. She is much more likely to retain that support if she tells the House at what point she is prepared to draw a line. The present position suggests to us that all or at least most prisoners could be released without a single weapon being decommissioned. We want to know at what stage, how soon and in what circumstances will she say that no more prisoners are to be released until there has been substantial decommissioning.
  Marjorie Mowlam: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I approach the problem in different ways. He wants to know when I will draw a line and stop a particular aspect of the agreement. I want to see what right

  339
  hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House can do to make sure that we make progress on all dimensions so that the problem that he describes no longer exists.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Marjorie Mowlam: I shall make one more point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and then I shall make a little more progress before taking further interventions.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to halting the accelerated release of prisoners. He well knows that that can be done under the agreement if the ceasefire is no longer unequivocal or is no longer maintained. That is the basis in the agreement and in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 of calling a halt to the process.
  At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member for Bracknell made it clear that he accepts from the security forces, the police and from the advice to me that the ceasefire is intact. Therefore, there is no basis in the agreement for me to act when the evidence—not allegations—that I receive is that the ceasefire is valid.
  Mr. MacKay: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I shall make a little more progress first before giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. MacKay: Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I shall give way when I have made some progress.
  We made it clear at the outset that decommissioning is an obligation, not an option, under the agreement. We and the Irish Government are doing all that we can to hold the parties and the respective paramilitary organisations to that obligation. Both Governments are clear that the parties signed up to complete the decommissioning of all arms within two years—it is important that Opposition Members take note of that.
  Mr. Owen Paterson rose—
  Mr. MacKay rose—
  Marjorie Mowlam: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Bracknell first.
  Mr. MacKay: The Secretary of State rightly quoted my response to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) when I said that I accepted the security advice to her that there was a ceasefire, but does she accept that a ceasefire is not the same as the total renunciation of violence? Let me quote again what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box:
  "Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that, of course"—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
  Her response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has given us the clear impression, I am afraid, that every
  340
  prisoner could be released without any decommissioning. That would be unacceptable and I cannot believe that she meant to give that impression. I give her this opportunity to correct the record.
  Marjorie Mowlam: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that peace is a process: it is not obtained by a switch that one can flip. While the process is being developed, some dimensions move quicker than others. Therefore, at the moment, we have unevenness between different dimensions. That is the nature of the difficulty of implementing an agreement, just as it was difficult to reach that agreement. I emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that what is important is that every comment that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made has been in line with the Good Friday agreement and its implementation.
  Mr. Robathan: The right hon. Lady says that developments must be in line with the agreement. The Prime Minister said on 14 May that one of the factors to be taken into account in clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement had been met was that
  "the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal; an end to … beatings".
  Is the Secretary of State satisfied that there has been an end to beatings or are there so-called punishment beatings week in and week out on the streets of west Belfast? Has the Chief Constable suggested to her or her ministerial colleagues that he has firm evidence that may or may not stand up in court that the beatings are the responsibility of paramilitary groups such as Direct Action Against Drugs, the Provisional IRA and therefore, as she has said on many occasions, Sinn Fein?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I remember being at the Opposition Dispatch Box at Christmas 1995 when nine murders had happened as a result of the activities of Direct Action Against Drugs. The Minister standing at the Government Dispatch Box said that the ceasefire was being maintained. At a difficult time, I supported the Government of the day because they needed such support when they were trying to hold the process together. It is sad that at a difficult time we do not get the same support from the Opposition.
  Punishment beatings are horrific and barbaric acts that ought not to happen. The Government are doing all that we can politically to stop them and the police are doing all that they can in terms of security. However, I must have firm evidence, not allegations, before I can act. That is not what I have received in the vast majority of cases; therefore, I have to make a judgment. In some cases, there is, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, a tenuous relationship between such acts and certain organisations—it would not stand up in court, but there is one. I have to make a judgment in the round as to whether that is sufficient to change the decision that I have made on an organisation in relation to despecifying prisoners, or whatever.
  As the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will remember, in the debate on the Loyalist Volunteer Force on 17 November, the Opposition spokesman talked about the difficulties. He said that punishment beatings continued, but that in relation to the LVF there was a balanced judgment to be made. The Opposition made it in favour of the LVF. Such a judgment should be left to

  341
  some of us who have more information than Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Blaby accepts that that information is important.
  Mr. David Winnick: As all that has been done since the agreement was signed has been in accordance with that agreement, including the release of prisoners, and as we all want decommissioning, what sort of message does my right hon. Friend believe that the motion might send to Belfast at a time of delicate negotiations and a delicate political position? Would it not be unfortunate if the House was seen to be divided when the Opposition say that they are in agreement with what was negotiated on Good Friday?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks. The question is not merely one of decommissioning, but of making sure that the agreement, which says that there should be an unequivocal ceasefire and that that should be the basis for prisoner releases—
  Mr. Paterson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Let me finish. The question is whether an unequivocal ceasefire is in place. The basis of the points made by Conservative Members is that an unequivocal ceasefire is not being maintained, yet the right hon. Member for Bracknell said that evidence provided to us suggesting that the ceasefire is being maintained is correct, so the Conservative Members' argument lacks foundation. What is important is that Opposition Members realise that the agreement has not broken down: there is still momentum and people are still talking. The best way to get the different dimensions implemented is to make sure that progress continues to be made. That is what I intend to do now.
  No previous Government have succeeded in achieving the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. No previous Government have done as much as the current Government have to try to secure the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons. The best way to ensure that all paramilitary weapons are decommissioned is to implement the Good Friday agreement in full. We are now at a crucial stage in Northern Ireland. The work continues on trying to reach an agreement on the ground about the nature of cross-border implementation bodies and departmental structures within Northern Ireland. A deal should be close. I wish that it had been reached earlier, but it requires confidence and leadership on all sides.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Secretary of State accept that I think that her judgment is broadly right when she says that, in Northern Ireland, decisions have to be taken on the balance? The issues are not cut and dried: they were not when the Conservatives were in government and I was one of the people who had to make those decisions occasionally. I accept that no radical change has occurred simply because the party in government has changed. Therefore, I broadly accept what she says.
  Does the right hon. Lady also accept that those of us who understand the issues in Northern Ireland understand that there would have been no Good Friday agreement without prisoner release? She knows, because I have told her, that I deplore that and find it distasteful, as do many
  342
  other hon. Members on both sides of the House, but that was the reality. In the same way, it is a reality that there would have been no agreement without the commitment to decommission.
  I understand the Secretary of State's point of view: she in a difficult, tense and messy situation and I shall not criticise her for trying to implement the agreement. However, does she accept that the reason fundamental concern is arising is that historically there has never been any decommissioning in Northern Ireland, or in Ireland, at the end of periods of violence? Does she accept that, sooner or later, to help to defuse that growing anxiety, the Government will have to be a little more forthcoming about what will be the issues surrounding decommissioning or the lack of decommissioning; and the danger that that might pose to the agreement?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and agree with him that the Good Friday agreement is a package, made up of several different dimensions, and that the agreement would not have been reached without all those dimensions being included. Prisoner release, accelerated release and decommissioning are essential elements. Like every other hon. Member, I should like decommissioning to start now, because that would help to bring much-needed confidence to the process and so enable both sides to continue to make progress on the implementation of the agreement. I agree with the general thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
  We have to look at the nature of the agreement, which says that the different dimensions are linked and that the package must be moved as a whole. In reality, that is the only practicable way in which the agreement can be implemented. Decommissioning would be a positive step, so I want it to happen sooner rather than later. However, at present, we need to make sure that progress is being made on other dimensions of the agreement. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning is up and running, General de Chastelain is in place and modalities are being discussed with representatives of the different parties linked to paramilitary groups. There has at least been some progress—although not very much, as Opposition Members have said.
  We do not yet have an Executive: we have a shadow Executive. We need a north-south ministerial council and we are yet to appoint cross-border implementation bodies and agree the Northern Ireland Departments. We have a long way to go on several dimensions. However, I ask Opposition Members: for goodness sake, give the people of Northern Ireland and their political leaders who have shown such determination and courage up till now the time and space to find a way forward. That is what they need. Nobody wants to see any dimension of the agreement fail.
  Mr. Paterson rose—
  Marjorie Mowlam: Let me make some more progress.
  We are at a crucial stage and other aspects of the agreement must be implemented. I hope that some of the recriminations that we are hearing both here and outside

  343
  this place will fade and we will have a chance to reach agreement on some points before Christmas. We must do more to build confidence in the agreement.
  Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. She mentioned the people of Northern Ireland. What confidence can they have in the agreement when there have been 400 violent attacks by terrorists in the period to October? That trend is accelerating, with 157 such attacks in November. How can the people of Northern Ireland remain confident in the situation when the Secretary of State and Labour Back Benchers are absolutely determined to turn a blind eye to that violence?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman checks his statistics before he starts citing round numbers. It is not clear whether there were more of such incidents under his Government or ours—it depends how one collates the statistics. I agree that the punishment beatings, shootings and murders are totally unacceptable. We and the people of Northern Ireland are trying, through the Good Friday agreement, to avoid a return to violence.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the views of the people of Northern Ireland. Many of those to whom I speak-1 am in Northern Ireland for most of the week—say that they find the situation difficult. The victims, particularly, have had a tough time in the past few months as prisoners have been released. Many families suffer terribly when they see those people exiting prison. I have no doubt that some find the situation difficult. However, many of those families say, "I don't like what you're doing; it's not easy. But if it means that other families will not have to suffer as we have suffered, it will be worth it."
  The Good Friday agreement is not perfect and the peace is not perfect—hon. Members' contributions today have shown that it is far from perfect. However, I believe that progress is being made. It is only a short time since the agreement was signed and we need space to accommodate it. We will not see change overnight: it will take days, weeks and months for people to accommodate the different dimensions of the agreement. Yes, it is taking time, but we should not say, "It's getting worse, so let's go backwards". If the Good Friday agreement breaks down, people across the divide will see it as a return to the bad times and to violence. We must do all that we can to ensure that the Good Friday agreement has a chance of success.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve rose—
  Marjorie Mowlam: I am sorry, I will not give way. I must make progress.
  Let us be clear about the Opposition motion's reference to prisoners, to which many Conservative Members have alluded. The agreement is clear on that point. It says:
  "Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit"—
  from early releases.
  344
  The right hon. Member for Bracknell said that he accepted our security advice as correct, but the Opposition are asking the Government to declare that the ceasefires by the IRA, the UVF and the UDA are not being maintained.
  Mr. MacKay: I repeat what the Prime Minister said, which I still accept. He said on the Floor of the House and in the referendum campaign that the renunciation of violence—which, as the right hon. Lady will agree, is linked to the early release of prisoners—must include decommissioning. As there is no sight or sign of decommissioning after seven months, the renunciation of violence that is the basis of her releasing prisoners is not in place.
  Marjorie Mowlam: The renunciation of violence is central, but the right hon. Gentleman fails to understand that, as the Prime Minister said, one decides whether there is a fundamental renunciation of violence on the basis of whether the ceasefire is maintained and there is an unequivocal commitment to it. I have said to him on several occasions that, if there is evidence to the contrary, I will seriously review it, but there is none. That means that the organisations are maintaining their ceasefire and prisoner release is in order.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: No, I have been generous to the hon. Gentleman and others. I must make progress.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: No, I have just said that I must make progress.
  Let me return to the point about firm evidenced, I have said that the police, the Army and security advisers have argued that the ceasefires continue in the case of the IRA, UVF and UDA.
  As I said, I accept that the peace is not perfect. I acknowledge that punishment beatings have continued. They are reprehensible and must end. They continued during the time of my predecessor in the previous Government. We supported him in his efforts because there are no easy answers. Politically, we are doing all that we can, and the police are doing all that they can in security terms, to bring to justice those who are responsible for punishment beatings.
  The peace is not without risks. No peace ever is, but the benefits of peace are there for all to see. I am in no doubt that, if I were to announce today that the ceasefires are at an end, despite the fact that the advice that we are receiving proves that they are not, I would be risking the whole Good Friday agreement and its benefits. That is what the Opposition are asking us to do.
  No one who has any recent experience of Northern Ireland could fail to notice the impact that peace is having. I saw for myself on Saturday what peace means for the people of Belfast. For the first time in 30 years, people were out doing their Christmas shopping and preparing and hoping for a festive season free from violence. The peace process is slow and will not happen overnight. We must give people time to come to terms with all the changes that are happening in their lives.

  345
  There are, of course, still many problems and hurdles to overcome. As Senator Mitchell and others have said, the implementation of the agreement is as difficult as reaching the agreement itself. There have been difficulties over the nature of cross-border implementation bodies, the number and structure of Northern Ireland Departments, the formation of the Executive and decommissioning. We have to resolve all those problems. Alongside all the other aspects of the agreement, the commitments made under the agreement must be honoured in full. To abandon our commitments under the agreement at this stage and not act in line with the agreement, which is what the Opposition are tonight asking us to do, would be to finish any prospect of holding other parties to theirs. It would be very short sighted.
  The questions that the Opposition have been asking are valid ones. I know that because, as I said, I am asked them by people in Northern Ireland. If they are valid for the people there, they are doubly valid for those who have suffered, yet many people say that for peace we must work together to find a way forward. That, I believe, is what many of the leaders in the talks are now doing. The questions are valid, but the answers that the Opposition are offering are not.
  We cannot rewrite the agreement. It is not ours to rewrite. We cannot introduce direct linkages between one aspect of the agreement and another which were not agreed by the parties themselves; nor can we introduce new preconditions, which is what the Opposition are asking us to do. This is my judgment. It is not an easy judgment, but it is a judgment that I make based on the best information available to me from the police and the security services in Northern Ireland.
  The significance of the Good Friday agreement has been recognised not only at home but abroad. Yesterday, in Washington, the achievements of the party leaders who so courageously negotiated the agreement were recognised by the National Democratic Institute. Tomorrow, in Oslo, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), representing the two main communities, will receive the Nobel peace prize—a fitting honour for them and the people whom they represent.
  Our most important focus now must be on Northern Ireland and on helping those in Northern Ireland who are trying to implement the agreement—the best way to get decommissioning. No other interest should come before that. People should look to their own conscience to ensure that they are doing all they can in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and are keeping those interests closest to their heart. With that in mind, I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion and to support the Government amendment.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Tom King: Anyone who has held the position currently filled by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland feels a certain diffidence in contributing to a debate of this kind, and I also accept that it is always the wrong time and always difficult to second-guess the Ministers and the Prime Minister who are responsible for this extremely difficult process in which they are engaged.
  The Secretary of State is always a little more correct than my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) in saying that the process did not start with the
  346
  Downing Street declaration. I do not claim the pride of authorship, as it started before me. Of course, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which did not have universal support in the House, was the start of a process and a change in attitude which has led to the situation that we hope will lead to a permanent peace. It is part of a very long process which has effectively been bipartisan all the way.
  I have to say to Labour Members, some of whom are new, that I did not appreciate some of the interventions that we heard today. The fact that the process was bipartisan never meant that the House was gagged or unable to express its opinion. There are issues over which the House would not have won respect had it failed to make it clear that there were alternative points of view. The former Opposition—now the Government—did not hesitate to make their points or to vote against me and my colleagues when they felt that they needed to do so.
  This is not a very helpful aside, but it seems that some Labour Back Benchers—I do not know whether they are organised by active Parliamentary Private Secretaries—feel that there must be no criticism of the Government and that they must interrupt and intervene on Opposition spokesmen. It seems that certain Labour Back Benchers are almost trying to provoke the end of bipartisanship.
  The House should debate the motion, which deals with a serious issue. The motion will not be carried—it will not change Government policy—but I hope that no one is suggesting that it is improper for the House even to express an opinion and for us even to vote on the matter. Labour Members did not hesitate to vote and express their views on this matter when they were in opposition. We accepted that they had the right to do so. I hope that we put the arguments, the motion and the vote in the right context.
  As somebody who was a personal recipient of bipartisanship, which I appreciated, I accepted that it did not make one free of criticism. The Secretary of State can look after herself; she does not need her Back Benchers to try to intervene in such an unfortunate way on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, our Front-Bench spokesman, in order to undermine him.
  We have, without question, a common objective. Too many of us have devoted too much of our lives, including some pretty unpleasant moments, trying to get where we are today to throw the process aside lightly. That does not mean that there are not occasions on which we have worries and concerns and want to exercise our rights as Members of Parliament—Back-Bench or Front-Bench—and express our views to the Government. It is the duty of the Opposition to do so.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) pointed out well, it has not surprised anybody, including that Secretary of State, that decommissioning is the most difficult of issues. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will remember that the British-Irish interparliamentary body happened to be meeting on the day of the Downing Street declaration. As we were gathered round, there was a great expression of good will when the news came that Albert Reynolds and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had signed the declaration. That afternoon, there was a debate, in what should have been a great spirit of good will. I was one of those who said

  347
  that decommissioning was very important and that, if we are to have a peace process in Northern Ireland, the removal of weapons is a very important part of it.
  As the hon. Member for Walsall, North may remember, reaction from those representing the Irish side of the British-Irish parliamentary body was one of absolute horror. They saw that statement as a traditional British attempt to undermine the process. Not one of them believed that decommissioning could be achieved and that the Downing Street declaration could possibly be moving in that direction. One realised then the gap of history between the British and Irish sides on that issue. It was apparent from day one of the signing of the Downing Street declaration.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, on the day after the meeting to which he referred, the Foreign Affairs Minister in the Dail told Sinn Fein, "This does not mean that you can get into the democratic process, take a look around and then retire if it does not suit you. It means giving up, handing in your weapons now"? That point was made from day one.
  Mr. King: I do not remember that particular reference, although I recall similar ones.
  We knew as we entered the process—we hope that the Good Friday agreement is the culmination of the achievement of the Downing Street declaration—that it would involve tough decisions on both sides. I have my own memories, all too sad and bitter. I was Secretary of State when the appalling murder of the corporals took place, before the country's eyes, on television. Yet I know that my memories are nothing compared with the suffering and pain and the price that the families and friends of those who died have had to pay.
  All this means a change of attitude. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said, it means that things that are not acceptable in a normal democratic society—such as people who are guilty of crimes not having to pay the full penalty for them—must be done. We accept, with a heavy heart, that a change of attitude, concession and some compromise are necessary for the greater good of the greatest number of people—for peace in Northern Ireland. Concessions are needed from both sides. The worry is that they are not coming—at least, that impression has been given.
  I am not in the loop of whatever negotiations may be taking place between the Government, Sinn Fein representatives and others, but the perception is that, while the Government's statements are admirable—I have no quarrel with any statement that the Government have made, from the statement made by the Prime Minister on 20 April 1998, up to and including that made by the Secretary of State on 2 December 1998—nothing has happened.
  As the Secretary of State rightly said, there has been a bit of a legalistic argument. If Martin McGuinness appears on television, a phrase that seems to echo regularly is a question about a precondition. The right hon. Lady has answered that by saying that it is not a precondition but an obligation. That is what she said—yet that obligation does not seem to be being performed.
  Perhaps decommissioning is difficult to organise. Perhaps it is a very complicated process. Perhaps meetings must be held, such as the meeting of the Army
  348
  council which I believe was held yesterday. The real worry is that to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Cambridgeshire alluded. Decommissioning is not something that will come through in the fulness of time. The real worry is that it will not come through at all. It is long established in Irish tradition that, as "when the pike is in the thatch", one does not surrender one' s weapons, and of course one does not use the word "surrender"—that word would be unacceptable.
  I understand the problems that the Government have, and I do not expect the Government to support the Opposition motion. However, given all the difficulties, I believe that the House, and Conservative Members at least, should speak up for the very many people in Northern Ireland who say, "It is not working. What will happen? Will people be allowed to keep all these weapons? Will they be allowed to keep heavy machine guns? Will they be allowed to keep sniper rifles? Will they be allowed to keep rocket launchers?" The Secretary of State knows that that is true, because she must be hearing such questions morning, noon and night.
  I do not worry so much about Semtex, because everyone knows that a good load of fertiliser, properly adapted, probably gives people all the threat that they need. Do we say, at the end of the list, that personal protection weapons remain as some residual defence against the fear of a loyalist mob and are the last element in the trust-building structure that will need to be built? There must be some approach that starts to give people confidence that there is no truth in the long-standing traditional belief that no decommissioning will ever happen.
  There must be movement—the hard choice that comes from leadership. That will have to come from the republican movement. Otherwise, I see, to my greatest sadness, and tragically for the people of Northern Ireland, the real danger that the agreement will not succeed. It deserves to succeed, and yet, in the end, if certain people are not prepared to make any movement whatever, the position of the Secretary of State in statements that she has made, and the position of the Prime Minister in statements that he has made, will become impossible.
  I am not only talking to the Secretary of State. I hope that the debate and the motion will be not unhelpful to the Government in discussions that they may be having with what I would describe as other people, in communicating the truth that, in the end, they will be unable to sustain their position; that they will be unable to be more and more understanding of other people's difficulties and problems; and that there will come a moment when they will be unable to accept what is put to them. That moment will come because the thin, small voice that comes from the Opposition side of the Chamber today will grow and grow, and more and more reasonable-minded people will say, "This simply is not acceptable".
  I say that not in an attempt to second-guess, because I understand something of the significant difficulties on this issue, but to say, through the Secretary of State to another audience, that that audience must understand that, unless there is some movement over the issue, the lack of movement threatens to destroy the whole process. That would be a tragedy for the whole United Kingdom and most particularly for all the people in the island of Ireland, whom the Secretary of State and so many others have worked so hard to help.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: It was with something of a heavy heart that I learned that tonight's debate was taking place, at the Opposition's behest, at a time of the greatest possible sensitivity in the inter-party negotiations taking place in Belfast. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) emphasised that the debate was not a breach of the bipartisan approach, but the tenor of the remark indicated to me that there was an element of cherry-picking—to use that hackneyed phrase—in the motion on decommissioning and prisoners.
  There are many aspects to the agreement. There is the political aspect, in terms of the inter-party negotiations and structures, north and south, east and west, and within Northern Ireland, and there are three other major elements: decommissioning, prisoner release and the reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The latter three aspects are so sensitive that the parties—I think wisely—said, "The matters should be handed to independent commissions, the first on decommissioning, the second on the consequences of prisoner release, and the third, to the Patten commission on the RUC."
  I say as an important aside that it is not insignificant that the third issue was omitted from the Opposition motion. The motion does not seem to embody the concern, often expressed by Conservative Members, that all matters should move forward together. That is an indication—almost a flagging up of the danger that Conservative Members are moving into partisanship in terms of the negotiation that we are very delicately entered into. The right hon. Member for Bracknell, the Conservative party and all hon. Members know that the decommissioning issue has been addressed not as an element of the agreement but as a precondition to advancement and implementation of the agreement.
  Mr. MacKay: Let me clarify one thing. We have not mentioned policing because the commission on policing, chaired by Chris Patten, is in full process. As far as I can tell, it is making good progress. Public meetings are being held around the Province, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere, so there is no need for concern. That is proceeding; surely that is right and proper.
  To suggest that debating Northern Ireland matters in the House, at any time, affects the process of the negotiation is to try to gag the House, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to do that. I do not believe that raising matters of decommissioning has an impact on the important matters that he and his colleagues are continuing to discuss in connection with north-south bodies. I mentioned those discussions, and I said that I did not wish to become directly involved in them, because I thought that it was best for the political parties that are negotiating to be involved in them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
  Mr. McGrady: The right hon. Gentleman, in an intervention, has said that those matters are progressing. So is the matter of decommissioning, in the international commission. I understand that the membership has been completed, and that various other aspects of the modalities are being processed. I am not privy to the internal workings of that commission, nor is it appropriate that I should be, because this matter, on which I have no expertise, is so delicate that it has been put in the hands of an international commission.
  350
  Decommissioning and prisoner release were scheduled in terms of the totality of the agreement. I understand that the decommissioning aspect of the agreement takes us up to May 2000. Let me say, initially and clearly, that I, my party and the people whom we represent want decommissioning as much as—perhaps more than—anyone else, because, unfortunately, statistics show that my community suffered more than any other from the use of weapons and explosives, and that it would be in my interests, not just that weapons and explosives be withdrawn from use, but that the paraphernalia and the structure of paramilitarism be eradicated from our society, once and for all, in the years ahead. I say "in the years ahead" because our community in Northern Ireland has suffered 30 years of intense violence, division and hatreds.
  On Second Reading of the Bill that became the Northern Ireland Act 1998 I said as strongly as I possibly could that the House could not and should not expect that, after 30 years, we could turn a key and switch off all violent activities. Unfortunately, we are seeing those words come to pass. Old debts are being settled. Mafia-type violence is being perpetrated in our society.
  If other hon. Members lived in the society in which I live, they would see a tremendous difference between where we were last year and where we are this year. That difference has already been referred to, and it does not apply only to yuletide. The difference can be seen every day and every night. We can go down our streets with our families and children and not be concerned about the bomb or bullet flying and destroying us. We can have peace of mind in social recreation. It is an enormous advance on where we were. That comes under the heading of peace, and peace has many pillars to support it. One such pillar is the political process. My party and I believe that we cannot have stable and permanent peace without a political structure, arrangement and agreement to support and back it and to ensure that the gun will never return to Irish politics.
  There is some cynicism about decommissioning. An old person in my constituency who had some experience of the past once said to me that if I were to put a gun on the table and no one touched it, it would be there in 1,000 years' time without anyone suffering the consequences of it. There is more in that statement than meets the eye. It is the use of weapons and explosives against people and property that is the problem, not that they rot in a cave or a dug-out or whatever. I hope that there will be actual and physical decommissioning. As I have also said, I hope that there will be disbandment of the paramilitary structures, which will allow that to take place.
  Unless we handle the peace process in the right way, the gun will not be taken out of Irish politics. If we fail and handle the process wrongly, the political process will be destroyed, and with it, the peace for which we have all striven. So much depends on the political process, and that is why all the matters that relate to the agreement must move forward. They will not move in unison but they have to move forward gradually. We must implement the agreement which was reached last Wednesday night into Thursday morning. It was dissipated in the dawn hours. It would give confidence and place the necessary moral and political pressures on the paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican, who are there with their weapons. They would be forced into a process of decommissioning.

  351
  That is what we are all trying to achieve by inter-party negotiations and the various commissions that have been set up. Unless we can have the room and the atmosphere to bring those negotiations and commissions to a conclusion, we are forfeiting the political process and the peace that we have learnt after three decades to appreciate. We now know what we were missing for so long.
  Some of my constituents have suffered the loss of their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters and other relatives. They are grieving and they are traumatised. The political process asked them for another sacrifice over and above that which was visited upon them. We asked them to make a voluntary sacrifice for the sake of our society. We said, "Those who perpetrated those crimes on you and your family will be released within the cycle of the agreement. This will be difficult for you, and traumatic."
  Of all those to whom I have spoken, no one has said, "Do not do that." Every one of them was prepared to make this enormous and additional sacrifice for the greater good of the community. They were all willing to do so because it was for the greater good of the community. They did not want eventually the same sacrifice and trauma to be visited on yet another person or family.
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says but I have to tell him that I have met some of his constituents who do not hold the view that he has described. A Mrs. Irene Cochrane from Downpatrick lost her son who was serving with the Ulster Defence Regiment. She certainly does not hold the view that it is right for the prisoners to be released.
  The hon. Gentleman talks about progress on decommissioning. The reality is that the international commission has been in place for many months, as has legislation and as have the modalities. There is no more progress to be made on these issues. Everything is now in place, and it has been for many months. But how many guns and bullets have been handed in? The hon. Gentleman knows that nothing has happened on these issues.
  The release of prisoners is a mandatory and not a voluntary process, and one that the victims have no option but to accept. If they are being asked to accept that, society surely is entitled to require the decommissioning of weapons. More than half the prisoners are now out and yet not one bullet has been handed over. Imagine the outcry that there would have been—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating himself in his own intervention.
  Mr. McGrady: I take on board what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) has said about members of certain families resenting the release of prisoners. I am saying that the vast majority of those whom I have met have said, with great reluctance and great difficulty, "If this sacrifice must be made yet again, for the greater good of our community and for peace for our children, we are prepared to wear this."
  Yes, there has been prisoner release and no physical decommissioning of a weapon such as a gun or Semtex. However, why do we relate one with the other when they
  352
  are separate issues? As I understand it, the process of prisoner release was to establish the ceasefire, thereby triggering the process by which decommissioning could take place. We must have the moral and political authority to force those who are still holding weapons, ammunition and Semtex to decommission because of the force of political and moral argument.
  The intervention of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley included the word "voluntary". In a sense—I say this at the risk of being misunderstood—at the end of the day decommissioning will be a voluntary decision. No one—neither members of the security forces nor anyone else—can force decommissioning. No one can force the surrender of even one gun. We must establish the conditions in our community where moral and political authority will demand and deliver the decommissioning process. Thirty years of the most intense security surveillance and penetration did nothing to bring about decommissioning or to stem the flow of weapons. Let us take that as another aspect of decommissioning.
  Everyone in the House knows that there could be decommissioning of whatever anyone liked tomorrow. That would leave us all standing like the emperor, politically naked. The following day the same people could re-arm and regroup quite easily. That is why we are talking not merely about physical decommissioning but about a decommissioning of the mind that requires us to ensure that the pursuance of any political objective with the use of weapons can no longer be tolerated and is no longer tolerated by any community in Ireland, north or south. The communities have already indicated that through the referendums in both north and south. Without equivocation, the people said that violence is out and weapons must not ever be used again in Ireland in pursuit of a political objective.
  Mr. Grieve: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the obligation—as it was described by the Secretary of State—to decommission would not have been put in the agreement unless it was thought necessary to make the peace process work. Does he also agree that the process was designed to be gradual and spread out over two years? How does he envisage the time frame in which decommissioning should take place within that two-year period?
  Mr. McGrady: The Good Friday agreement does not give a timetable, except a finishing date of May 2000, as I have already said. We must create the moral thrust and the political environment that will make decommissioning imperative. We must create the additional trust that will enable—or force—the paramilitaries of either persuasion to give up their weapons as their part in a trust-building exercise with the opposite communities.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: If there is no power that will make the paramilitaries give up their weapons now, what security do we have to assure us—no matter what concessions we make—that they will give up their weapons within the two years? What are we to hope for if nothing can compel those thugs and terrorists to disarm?
  Mr. McGrady: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have been listening to me. I have said time and again that the only way that we can force decommissioning is by moral persuasion and political

  353
  structures that make it impossible for paramilitaries to continue their activities with any support from either community.
  The alternative required by the motion is to stop releasing prisoners, cut off the negotiations and bring everything to a halt until some weapons and Semtex are put on the table. If that is the logical consequence of the motion, it is a recipe for total disaster. The motion did not suggest an alternative process and nor did any of the hon. Members who have contributed so far. No doubt, we will receive the benefit of the wisdom of those hon. Members who will contribute later.
  We have a difficult and delicate political process in train at the moment and this motion is giving all the wrong signals to those people who wish to destroy the edifice of political negotiation, decommissioning and prisoner release that has been so delicately brought together in one package. That process did not happen in a year or two: it took three decades to put it together. Three months could destroy it. Opposition Members who will presumably push the motion to a vote tonight are saying that we must halt all the processes until a gun or pound of Semtex is put on the table. That is putting a political weapon into the hands of those who say no to the Belfast agreement—Opposition Members are aligning themselves with that political attitude—and giving an additional weapon to the likes of the Provisional IRA and the UVF to use for further bargaining. We are trying to achieve a moral and political authority that will force the paramilitaries to decommission and I therefore hope that the Opposition will not press the motion to a vote.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: This is a difficult time in Northern Irish politics and a difficult process is under way. The stakes are enormously high and I hope that we can all agree that the last thing that we need is to use the issue as a party political opportunity instead of an opportunity to secure peace in Northern Ireland.
  I shall assume in my speech that the Conservatives' intention is not to try to score party political points, because to do so would be in contravention of the spirit of the bipartisan agreement. In that context, I am surprised that the Conservatives have chosen to debate the issue in this form. It is not clear that this debate will make it easier for those who are trying so hard to negotiate, on decommissioning and in so many other areas, to achieve the results that we all want. Clearly, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) feels differently and he is entitled to do so, but we need to recognise the difference between legitimate concerns and the impact that a debate such as this may have in the longer term on what we are trying to achieve.
  I was encouraged when the right hon. Member for Bracknell reaffirmed the Conservatives' commitment in spirit and in word to the Good Friday agreement. That is at the core of this debate. Technically, the Good Friday agreement has not been breached in any way. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made it clear that the agreement contains an objective and unarguable two-year time frame. No staging posts have been written into the agreement, for good and pragmatic reasons. However, I am sure that all hon. Members wish to see
  354
  progress on decommissioning soon, because a pressure is welling up in various bodies in Northern Ireland, political and non-political, and nervousness is growing.
  Mr. Donaldson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a timetable for the release of prisoners in the Belfast agreement, or is the situation the same as for decommissioning—with no specific timetable, only a target date? Does he accept that we have had much progress on prisoner releases and no progress on decommissioning?
  Mr. Öpik: The target date in the Good Friday agreement for prisoner releases is June 1999, so prisoner releases need to be completed ahead of decommissioning. To that extent, while we have talked about a parallel time frame, the two matters are likely to proceed at slightly different rates. The process has to contain a degree of good will as well as an element of risk. I did not hear Conservative Members argue when prisoner releases began that they were necessarily bad, although 1 stand to be corrected. The concern about prisoner releases has evolved as a result of the apparent non-movement on decommissioning.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: At the time, I and several of my hon. Friends asked the Government why the paramilitaries would give up their arms after all the prisoners had been released. What reason would the paramilitaries then have to give up their arms, since the Government would have played their trump card?
  Mr. Öpik: I am not here to provide a tutorial on the elements of the Good Friday agreement; indeed, there are right hon. and hon. Members present who are far more competent to do so. However, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is two-way process for prisoner releases. If the conditions are breached, the opportunity for those people to remain as free individuals falls. That would apply if, for example, there were a break in the ceasefire. It might be difficult to implement that, but the hon. Gentleman must know that there is that two-way condition.
  The Conservative's apparently intransigent position, that fear of falling, seems to motivate their agenda. As far as I can tell from the motion, the Conservatives are effectively focusing on one aspect—an important aspect—which is decommissioning, while taking their eye off the bigger ball. The debate is not really about decommissioning and prisoner releases; it is about securing a lasting peace with which all sides in Northern Ireland can live.
  What is lacking here is a willingness to accept a degree of risk, which has probably been largely responsible for the progress that we have made so far. I would go so far as to say that, in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, the motion operates on the assumption of a new condition. Just as we can debate the timetable, and so forth, so I point out unequivocally to the right hon. Member for Bracknell that there is nothing in the Good Friday agreement which states that prisoner releases must stop if the decommissioning process has not yet reached a specific staging post.
  I stress again that I do not say that because I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's very reasonable nervousness with regard to the length of time that

  355
  decommissioning has taken. Furthermore, I agree with his past comments that Sinn Fein must not hide behind fatuous excuses in order to vacillate; nor must they use legalistic arguments in order to pretend that they do not have a moral responsibility to participate. Once again, that has been a positive contribution made by Conservative Members in many debates.
  We are all familiar with the arguments on decommissioning because we seem to have this debate once every two weeks in the House. Decommissioning has three key elements which are obstacles to its proceeding at a faster rate. One is the position of the various groups involved as they try to balance themselves between where they came from historically, briefly described by the hon. Member for South Down, and where they are heading in the future.
  The second element is one of symbolism. Let us not pretend: an enormous amount of symbolism is associated with decommissioning. It is not easy for those involved to talk about it in public because, ultimately, there are big internal frictions in the organisations themselves over decommissioning.
  The third element is one of strategy. People are engaged in tough negotiations in the Province. Decommissioning is a natural area for intense negotiations. That is not to justify the lack of progress on decommissioning, but it is to highlight the danger of putting the spotlight on decommissioning at a time when, unquestionably, there are processes and negotiations at a high level within the organisations and between the Government and those organisations in trying to secure progress. I would go as far as to say that that spotlight is rather unhelpful because it makes people take rather more intransigent positions in public than they might in private.
  Punishment beatings have been mentioned. Had the official Opposition wanted a constructive debate today on Northern Ireland in which they could secure the support of both sides of the House, they might have chosen a motion on punishment beatings. I think that all hon. Members agree that an underlying level of insidious violence continues. Punishment beatings might more accurately be called mutilation attacks. There are those who have suffered such violence despite the official ceasefire.
  Mr. David Wilshire: I find the hon. Gentleman's train of thought interesting. Is he telling the House that, if there were a motion that no more prisoners should be released until punishment beatings stopped, he and his party would vote for it?
  Mr. Öpik: No, we would not. As far as I can tell, the key issue—[Interruption.]—as the jeering from the Back Bench confirms, is that there are those, and I am not suggesting that Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen are among them, who seek to win party political points on an issue which it is profoundly important to set aside if the Conservatives are to honour the spirit of the bipartisan agreement.
  To clarify my point—I apologise if I did not make it clearly enough—had we debated mutilation attacks and pressed the Secretary of State to make some investment of time and energy to show that they were unacceptable,
  356
  we would certainly have voted with the Conservatives, and I should like to think that the House would not have divided on such a matter.
  I highlight that point to show that talking about decommissioning is nowhere near as helpful as talking about the processes and the issues that are causing harm to individuals, such as the mutilation beatings. I hope that we will move away from calling them punishment beatings. Anyone who believes that a punishment beating is a legitimate form of justice is living in an age which passed away hundreds of years ago.
  Let us consider the effect of the Opposition motion. What will happen if it is passed? Once again, this is an area of judgment, and clearly, my judgment is different from that of the right hon. Member for Bracknell. To pass that motion would be a gift-wrapped reason for those hard-line terrorists who want to see a resumption of violence to do exactly that. I say that because they could then turn round and say, "As you can see, the process has faltered."
  However much the right hon. Member for Bracknell believes that he could explain it otherwise to the public, if the motion were passed, it would be almost impossible for it not to send a signal around the world that the House no longer believes that it can honour its half of the commitment in the Good Friday agreement. To me, that would be an absolute tragedy.
  The right hon. Member for Bracknell may be sceptical about that problem and the likelihood of others misinterpreting the situation, but I remind him of the events in September this year when he himself commented on the Liberal Democrats' apparent commitment to vote against the prevention of terrorism legislation in the future. That completely fallacious idea did the rounds in the media and led the right hon. Gentleman, a man who is clued up about what is happening in Northern Ireland, to believe that it was the Liberal Democrats' position. He must know that he is playing with fire in tabling this motion because there are so many people who will see it as a sign of the breakdown of the bipartisan agreement.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be assiduous in ensuring that that misunderstanding does not go beyond this debate and that there is no danger that, in tomorrow's papers, there will be the slightest implication that the Conservatives are thinking of withdrawing from the bipartisan agreement. I wish him all speed in achieving that, however vigorous the reassurances to the press will need to be.
  Lastly, I wish to compliment all those who have brought us thus far. Some insightful comments have been made. For example, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) clearly had a detailed understanding of the issues. In addition, the right hon. Member for Bracknell, who makes regular visits to the Province, is apprised of what is going on there. In congratulating those people, I must also think of those who operate in the sphere of northern Irish politics. I have much admiration for those who have brought us so far.
  My request to those in the Chamber who are actively engaged in the politics of the Province is that they will not feel bound to take a binary decision. I hope that they do not feel that the spotlight, of which I talked earlier, in some way corrals them into taking a position that is more hard line than they might otherwise adopt.

  357
  The official Opposition may have felt the need to make those points, but I am not sure that it was entirely prudent to do so in this way. However, they have now done so and doubtless we shall have other similar debates. Given the political realities, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said, there is no prospect of the motion's being passed. Therefore, the only logic in voting for it is to stake a claim that can be realised as accurate only if the peace process fails.
  We must plan for success, not for failure. Therefore, it is rather imprudent to corral the official Opposition into a position where—necessarily, if the process is successful—they will look as though they have committed a serious error of judgment.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making a characteristically thoughtful contribution. Does he not agree that it would be dangerous if, for the sake of bipartisanship, hon. Members gave the impression that there is not a growing groundswell of considerable opposition to terrorist releases when they are not accompanied by moving the peace process on by degrees, as envisaged in the agreement? If we did that, would not we be sending the wrong message to those who must decommission if the agreement is to work?
  Mr. Öpik: That is where we started. Although that is a fair summation of the Conservative position—the right hon. Member for Bracknell would agree with that—it is simply not where I stand. In such a sensitive debate, where so much more is conducted in private than in public, it is dangerous to throw the light of publicity on to the matter, especially at such a sensitive time.
  We will see who is right in the course of events, but my judgment is that the motion makes it more difficult to achieve the very things that all hon. Members believe are vital to future long-lasting and consolidated peace in the Province. The issue is one of judgment. It was dangerous to bring the matter up in such a way, but it would be crass foolishness to push the motion to a vote. If it is voted on, we shall vote for the Government amendment, not for the Conservative motion.
  It is always worth remembering that it is not bad faith that secures peace. I would like more of that from some quarters of the Chamber in the crucial months to come.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is limited time for the debate. I must appeal for brief speeches, otherwise people will be disappointed.
  5.52 pm
  Ms Helen Southworth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall take account of your guidance.
  Like other hon. Members, I regret the decision of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to lend his name to this attempt by some, although by no means all, Opposition Members to rewrite the Belfast agreement. I take hope from the thought that, at some points, there have been only three Conservative Back Benchers present to listen to, and participate in, the debate.
  Like most hon. Members and people across these islands, I shared the joy of the people of Northern Ireland on Good Friday, when agreement was reached after long and difficult negotiations. On 22 May, while people in
  358
  northern and southern Ireland were voting overwhelmingly to support the agreement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in my constituency, unveiling a sign for peace on the site of Warrington's international peace centre. She saw and shared the hope that people in Warrington have for the agreement.
  While the people of Northern Ireland are working to implement the detail of the agreement, it would be dreadful if there were political opportunism and cherry-picking by hon. Members—looking for differences and exaggerating them, and stirring the pot for people's own narrow political interests. I hope that there will not be a vote on the motion.
  As the voice of the people who elected me, I have a different story for hon. Members. Town centres are an economic key and the heart of their local community. The all-party group on town centre management, which is the largest after the beer club, is meeting in Westminster today. It is about normal society, as is recognised by all hon. Members.
  The Warrington bombing by the IRA five years ago took two young lives and ripped the heart out of our town centre and our community. They were two more lives to add to more than 3,500 stolen by the conflict during the past three decades. It brought home to me and to many people in Warrington the fact that ordinary daily life in Northern Ireland was conducted in an environment of terror and threats of violence.
  We desire to build reconciliation—a bridge. The word "bridge" means a lot in Warrington, because the bomb went off in Bridge street. We are trying to build a bridge with ordinary people in Northern Ireland, whose experience of terror we have shared directly. We have been building relationships. The Tim Parry scholarship has organised exchange visits for children, who learn about each other's cultures and communities. There are relationships between schools, and we have held sporting events with people from northern and southern Ireland. People have been getting together and enjoying themselves.
  Warrington male voice choir has developed a programme, working with people in Belfast and in southern Ireland and bringing music and harmony across the islands, and so many people have given so much support to the Tim Parry and Johnathan Ball international peace centre. This has been about ordinary people, business sponsorship, raffles and sponsored walks. People across the north-west are investing time, money and energy in building friendships and breaking down barriers.
  Last weekend, I had the great pleasure of visiting Belfast and Omagh—town centres that have been torn by violence in the past—with Cohn and Wendy Parry, a civic party from Warrington and the male voice choir, which was participating in Christmas concerts. The discussions between civic leaders were of the kind that take place everywhere. They were about economic investment, growing small business, supporting women and helping them into business and sharing information about practical things, such as street furniture and arts centres, which are important for civic life.
  The Belfast choir was spectacular—it was a wonderful concert—and the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Garda combined band was really good. There were more than

  359
  500 young people, from the north and the south and across cultural and religious groups. They worked hard and they sang well. They were exceptional, not because they came from north and south and from across different cultural groups, but in the excellence of their singing. They showed the future for Northern Ireland. Those children are exceptional because they have worked hard and have achieved something—they were celebrating it together.
  It is the Christmas season. Madam Speaker held a service in Westminster Hall today, and that is the normal way to behave in this season—"sweet singing in the choir". The Omagh community choir sang "Across the Bridge of Hope" in Omagh and in Belfast. I am going to quote parts of it that the choir pointed out to me. [Interruption.] I honestly do not care whether Opposition Members are going to listen to this, because many other people will listen and give it their support.
  For many people, "Across the Bridge of Hope" is the peace process. It says:
  "For many hands have fashioned it, imperfect it may be
  But strong enough for plenty with support from you and me".
  The choir also sang:
  "When history dictates, mistrust may just be vanity".
  Those are children's words, and it is important for adults to listen to children at any time—especially children from Omagh, who need us to hear what they are saying.
  I want to tell Opposition Members a brief story about an exhibition on racism in Chicago. Two doors led into the exhibition, one saying "Prejudiced" and another saying "Unprejudiced". People chose which one to go through. When a person from Chicago was telling me this story, I said that I would go through the door saying "Unprejudiced". She said, "You wouldn't be able to, because it doesn't open. There is no such thing as a person without prejudice." I ask Opposition Members to learn from the past and to focus on the future, because it is our responsibility to create a better future. They should think carefully about how they will do that.
  Tomorrow, the next part of the "out of darkness comes light" programme will take place in Omagh. It will include children's story-telling for Christmas. The 500 children in the Belfast choir sang a Slade song, "Merry Christmas everybody". It is a Christmas party song that people dance to, the chorus of which goes:
  "So here it is, Merry Christmas.
  Everybody's having fun.
  Look to the future now.
  It's only just begun."
  As politicians, as civic leaders and as adults—we are adults—we have the responsibility and opportunity to ensure that the children of these islands have a peaceful Christmas and many happy and prosperous new years. I hope that we take that opportunity.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I regret that, because of the brevity of the debate, it will not be possible for those who come from Northern Ireland to speak with the depth of knowledge that years of experience of terrorism has given them. I do not want to
  360
  be offensive, but the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) made about the most patronising speech that I have ever heard in the House.
  I am a Northern Ireland Member, and I have been in the House for almost 16 years. Having lived most of my life in Northern Ireland, I cannot ignore the fact that the Conservative party, which tabled the motion, let down the people of Northern Ireland during its 18 years in government. It undermined the foundations on which political progress and peace could have been built long before now. It is heartbreaking to realise that the present Government, after being in opposition for so long, are making exactly the same mistakes.
  I shall remind the official Opposition of the mistakes they made. There was the folly of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was imposed on the people of Northern Ireland without their consent, and without any consideration of their wishes. It was one of the greatest boosts that terrorism ever had in the 30 years to which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred. Those of us who understand the nature of terrorism remember the words of Danny Morrison, the publicity spokesman for Sinn Fein and IRA member, who talked about an Armalite and ballot box strategy.
  One of the problems that my colleagues and I have faced over the years is the fact that both main parties in turn—as they have been in government—have pandered to those who can bring the greatest force to bear in Northern Ireland. That is what the Anglo-Irish Agreement did. Baroness Thatcher now admits that she was wrong to introduce that agreement, but she did so because she could not tolerate the level of violence in Northern Ireland. Whatever her motives, the naivety of that agreement was experienced by all of us for a decade and longer.
  The Conservative Government's other huge faux pas was the framework documents, which were predicated on the notion that the way to bring an end to violence in Northern Ireland was to harmonise the two political entities. That again undermined the framework on which those of us who care about political progress and peace hoped to build.
  Now, in the most disingenuous manner, the present Northern Ireland Office team are undermining the Stormont agreement, for which many of us feel we paid a huge price. It is all very well for them to say that they support the letter of the Stormont agreement, but every action currently taken by the Northern Ireland Office team undermines the confidence of the greater number of people within both traditions in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I am glad that the Minister responsible for security, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), has arrived, and feels that it is incumbent on him to mutter to colleagues on the Front Bench.
  I shall give an example of the disingenuous approach taken by the Northern Ireland Office. In the light of the continuing threat, I recently asked the Secretary of State
  "if she will identify those permanent security structures which are currently under consideration for demolition."
  One would have thought that that list would be fairly short, given the danger to Northern Ireland as terrorists move, at their convenience, from one group to another—

  361
  as they change cap badges. What did the Minister, who is still muttering, have to say? He said:
  "The Government are committed to returning Northern Ireland to normal policing and security arrangements as soon as it is safe to do so. This is clearly set out in the Good Friday Agreement. However, we can only move as fast as the security situation allows."—[Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 620.]
  The Minister says that we can only move as fast as the security situation allows. It might have increased my confidence and that of my constituents if he had had the guts to tell me that the Aughnacloy checkpoint is being demolished, as it is at present. A permanent, reinforced structure will not be replaced—God help us, if the violence starts again—yet one of the reassurances given by the Northern Ireland Office was that no irreversible steps would be taken to lessen security in Northern Ireland.
  My party has co-operated with measures to remove troops from Northern Ireland, and with other steps that have been taken to achieve normality on the streets. We wanted that obligation to be honoured, but that has not happened. That is part of the difficulty we face.
  I recently learned that the entire network of cross-border permanent checkpoints is under threat. I was told that they will not necessarily be removed after violence has been brought to an end and the guns and bombs have been decommissioned, but at an appropriate time in the medium term. That undermines the confidence of those of us in Northern Ireland who support the Stormont agreement, and who want that agreement to be implemented even-handedly.
  One difficulty is that the victims of the IRA who are sitting on the Labour Benches are different from the victims whom I represent. They are the victims of IRA propaganda, who chunter words such as "preconditions". The Secretary of State says that there will be no preconditions. Well, there are no preconditions since the signing of the Stormont agreement, but there are post-conditions, and, as I think that the Secretary of State is beginning to understand—she certainly did not understand it at Northern Ireland questions last week, but I think she is beginning to understand it now—those are obligations: obligations that must be fulfilled.
  Mr. Donaldson: My hon. Friend has mentioned the obligations placed on the Government. As he will know, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 places a specific obligation on the Secretary of State, requiring her, among other things, to take into account whether organisations benefiting from prisoner releases are co-operating fully with the International Commission on Decommissioning. Does my hon. Friend agree that no such organisation is currently co-operating with the commission?
  Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which returns me to a point that I made earlier about the nature of terrorism and the Armalite-and-ballot-box policy of the IRA. It is a policy that has been recognised by other paramilitary groups. It means that a terrorist can go into hibernation in terms of the Armalite, but can continue to undermine society by exploiting the political process. The Government are not, at this stage, dealing with that effectively.
  If we are to make progress, we must understand what the IRA is trying to achieve. What will happen if the IRA can achieve the full release of prisoners, and a place
  362
  within the Administration—the Executive—which will, in turn, enable it to discredit the Government? I shall remind the House shortly of the original position of the House in terms of disarmament; but, if the IRA can discredit the Government, with the guns still in place it can threaten society. As many speakers have pointed out today, we will then be asked, "Are you going to give up this armed peace for a real war?"
  What does an armed peace—a phrase used by the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, Bertie Ahern—offer a people in a democracy? Nothing, except exploitation by those who continue to threaten. There might just be an Omagh, an Enniskillen or a La Mon around the corner. Moreover, there is always the fallback that, if the Government show real commitment to real democracy, there might just be a Regent's park, a Canary wharf or a Warrington.
  We know what blackmail is, because we have seen it for 30 years. It is being applied in terms of the work being done by the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland. We need only walk into a public meeting, as I did on Friday night, to see an entire bank of Sinn Fein-IRA members, well orchestrated—
  Mr. McGrady: And Loyalists.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind me of that, but I was talking about my constituency, which, as he knows, does not contain a very active Loyalist terrorist element. The same is, of course, true of his constituency. In parts of the east of the Province, however, there they are—the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association and the rest.
  At the meeting that I attended in Dungannon on Friday night, I observed that there were no ordinary members of the hon. Gentleman's tradition in the hall. 1 was told that, if they had been present, they would not have dared to open their mouths. A member of the IRA—the father of the late commanding officer in Dungannon, who was shot at Loughgall—read out his statement as though, somehow, he had been a victim of violence. The wife of one of the Ballygawley bus bombers explained how she had been a victim of the security forces.
  The event was orchestrated to the last degree. A schoolmaster—a member of my tradition—made an even-handed and constructive contribution, and, after church on Sunday morning, I congratulated him on it. He—a man in his mid-sixties, who is well respected in the community—told me, "I found it very difficult, because I did not know whether that was a brick through my window or something worse, and I could not be sure what I was doing to my family." That is the extent of the intimidation that is occurring as the commission tries to fulfil its obligation to society in Northern Ireland. There is no balance.
  It really is time that Northern Ireland Ministers went out and met IRA propaganda head on. It is time that they took the trouble to prove that the IRA is incorrect in saying, "There is no tradition of disarmament. Where did you ever hear of disarmament taking place where there has been a civil conflict?" I could name El Salvador, the Lebanon, Mozambique, Guatemala and, currently, Colombia. Disarmament is taking place as a result of political agreements that are being honoured by some of the most callous militias and other terrorist groups; why

  363
  should Northern Ireland be any different? Why should the Secretary of State baulk at the idea that to meet Sinn Fein-IRA and other paramilitary organisations head on is somehow to leave us in a worse position than we are in now?
  The people of Northern Ireland, more than 70 per cent. of whom voted in favour of the Stormont agreement, do not expect to be betrayed, but they feel that the Government, and, in particular, the Northern Ireland Office, have been equivocal and evasive. I do not know why the Prime Minister does not step in as he did before 10 April, with the same enthusiasm and gusto, and reassure the people; someone must meet that obligation.
  I will end with that thought, as others wish to speak.
  6.19 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I intend to make the briefest speech in the debate, although I shall not resume my seat immediately.
  I remind the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) of a comment made by Senator Mitchell in his Dimbleby lecture last week:
  "I am not objective. I'm deeply biased in favour of the people of Northern Ireland. Having spent nearly four years among them, I've come to like and admire them. While they can be quarrelsome and too quick to take offence, they are also warm and generous, energetic and productive."
  I was prompted to make that comment by the hon. Gentleman's charmless response to the charming speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth).
  I regret the motion. It is deeply unhelpful. I readily say that, when we have our debates, the exchanges with the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) are always civil-minded and courteous. Despite that courtesy and civil-mindedness, he has made a grave error of judgment in tabling the motion at this moment.
  It is right and proper that the Opposition offer tough-minded and legitimate criticisms of Government policy, even where, broadly, we have the same aspirations. I say the same to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). He, too, was right to say that it is entirely legitimate to be tough-minded in response to a Government's policies. Labour Members were the same when we occupied the Opposition Benches. It will be many years before we are back there, but that is another story.
  Similarly, I thought that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) offered a fair-minded intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It was characteristically honest. Hon. Members will recall that he said that the subject is deeply divisive and the problem complicated and almost intractable, but, again, that he was right to offer criticisms of the Government. That is the duty of the Opposition, but the motion is a mistake.
  I remind the House of something else that Senator George Mitchell said the other day:
  "This week I met in Cork with the Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, and in Belfast with the leaders of the new Northern Ireland Assembly and the political parties. As you know, so far they have been unable to resolve issues relating to formation of the executive and the decommissioning of arms. There is uneasiness among some about the continuing release of prisoners."
  364
  I suspect that some hon. Members would say that that is an understatement.
  Senator Mitchell went on:
  "Next year there will be further controversy when reports are received from the independent commission on policing and the criminal justice system. Policing is especially sensitive. Chris Patten and his colleagues on that commission have an important and difficult task."
  I, along with other hon. Members of committee A of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, will meet Chris Patten on Monday in this building.
  Senator Mitchell said—here he cannot be accused of understatement:
  "It will take extraordinary determination and commitment to get safely through all of these problems. But I believe it can be done and will be done. It would be an immense tragedy were the process to fail now. The British and Irish Governments and the political leaders of Northern Ireland have come too far to let peace slip away."
  He is absolutely right. We have known all along that decommissioning would be the most difficult question to address and to settle, but with patient, painstaking negotiations, and with the intervention of General de Chastelain and his colleagues, much can be achieved over the next 16 to 17 months.
  I remain—like Senator Mitchell, I like to think—a warm friend of the people of Northern Ireland, and optimistic that the painstaking negotiations can bring about the outcome that all of us want. There is too much pessimism on those matters among hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I should like to see more optimism and more faith in the people who are at the forefront of the endeavours.
  I fully support what the Secretary of State is doing, and I am not being encouraged by—
  Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Godman: Sit down.
  I am not being encouraged by active Parliamentary Private Secretaries, or even tough—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not addressing that remark to the Chair.
  Dr. Godman: I would not dare, Sir. I was just asking someone across the way—certainly not you—to sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman must know that matters of order are for the Chair and not for him.
  Dr. Godman: I take that stricture, and apologise to you, Sir.
  The Secretary of State's position is absolutely right on the issue. We should vote against the motion, and support the Government.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be as brief as possible.
  I have a facsimile of the letter that the Prime Minister wrote in his hand on 20 May. It is headed:
  "My pledge to the people of Northern Ireland."

  365
  There are five pledges. The last two are worthy of consideration:
  "Those who use or threaten violence excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland",
  and
  "Prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good"—
  some pledges.
  The fact that this debate is taking place is testimony to the fact that promises have been broken and trust betrayed. If the Prime Minister had kept his word—the word that he spoke at Balmoral on 14 May and repeated in the hand-written letter of 20 May, in the letter that was published in the News Letter and Irish Independent on referendum day and referred to on many occasions in the House, in particular on 6 May—there would be no need for this debate, but the Prime Minister and the Government have not kept their word. They have not honoured their pledge. The Government have betrayed the trust of the people of Northern Ireland and broken promises that were made to them.
  Few people, if any, deny that many Unionists voted yes on referendum day and for pro-agreement candidates in the Assembly elections because the Government had promised—so those Unionists understood—that there would be a direct link between decommissioning and early release, and between decommissioning and places on the Executive.
  Mr. Wilshire: Like me, my hon. Friend was in Northern Ireland recently—we were at the same place. Did he hear what I heard on that occasion—a significant number of Unionists saying that they had voted yes in the referendum to give the process a chance, but felt utterly betrayed and that they were now being sold out through appeasement, which was going to get them nowhere?
  Mr. Hunter: I do recall that powerful occasion and endorse what my hon. Friend has said. One reason why those people said that was because they perhaps remembered the exchange in the House on 6 May 1998, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister if he agreed that
  "prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons".—[Official Report, 6 May; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
  Audio recordings of our proceedings confirm that the Prime Minister replied:
  "The answer to your question is, yes, of course".
  He went on further and applied it. He said:
  "both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and the early release of prisoners"—
  no ifs, no buts, unequivocal, unambiguous. The Prime Minister in this Chamber said, "No early release, no places on the Executive without decommissioning."
  The second episode worth remembering is the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to two Northern Ireland newspapers, which was printed on 22 May. It said:
  "There can be no accelerated prisoner release unless organisations and individuals concerned have clearly given up violence for good."
  That has not happened. The violence continues. There has been no let-up since the agreement, but the prisoners are coming out.
  366
  The Prime Minister continued:
  "Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland Government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That does not just mean decommissioning, but all bombings, killings, beatings, an end to targeting, recruiting and all the structures of terrorism."
  Thankfully, the terrorists have pressed the pause button on the bombings, but they retain the capability to resume them whenever they want. Meanwhile, the killings, beatings, targeting and recruiting continue and the structures of terrorism remain intact.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, in particular because the majority of Unionists on the Opposition Benches voted against the Belfast agreement, but it looks as though none of us will be called to speak in the debate. May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which relates decommissioning to the release of prisoners? It was a Government proposal, which was enacted by the House. Under that measure, the Secretary of State has powers to stop prisoners being released because decommissioning has not taken place.
  Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
  Finally, since 1 November—a mere five weeks—there have been 29 exiles, 11 shootings and 15 beatings in Northern Ireland and 138 people have been the victims of intimidation of a different nature. The Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the IRA have all been involved in that grisly catalogue of mental and physical torture. Meanwhile, the obscene process of early release continues. The Prime Minister said:
  "There can be no accelerated prisoner releases unless organisations and individuals concerned have clearly given up violence for good."
  What was intended to be a peace process, long ago turned into a shameful process of appeasement. Labour Members say that there would have been no agreement without early release. So be it. A civilised society has core values, which include the rule of law and a judicial system that is independent of political interference. Neither exists in Northern Ireland—they died with the agreement.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: The wording of the motion was carefully drafted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) pointed out. The first part includes three comments that were made by the Prime Minister: the first at Balmoral on 14 May 1998; the second from Hansard on 20 April 1998; in response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; and the third in a response at Prime Minister's Question Time on 6 May. I shall read the last of the three quotations:
  "The only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good".
  In another answer, he said
  "Decommissioning is part of that".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]

  367
  Listening to the views of the Government this evening, I find it extremely difficult to understand how they can oppose their own Prime Minister's words. We are asking that those pledges—given not only on those three occasions, but consistently throughout the past seven months—should be honoured.
  We have been consistent in our approach to the issues. In May, the Leader of the Opposition put the salient points to the Prime Minister. We are returning to the theme this evening because we are unhappy at developments, as is obvious from comments made in the debate by Conservative Members in particular, by those who favoured the Belfast agreement and were a party to it, and by those with a vested interest in the future of Northern Ireland.
  There is no break in the bipartisan approach. Nor do we seek to oppose or rewrite the agreement, as many Labour Members reading the Whip's notes are told to ask. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said in his most telling contribution, hon. Members have a right to debate and to express opinions in the House, and not merely the opinions of Members, who have their own worries and considerations on the matter, but those of many people in Northern Ireland. I would go further. We also have a duty to express the fears, worries and concerns of the electorate we represent. This matter does not pertain merely to Northern Ireland. The entire United Kingdom electorate has a definite view of the situation. My right hon. Friend said that, to date, Government statements from the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been entirely admirable and I agree, but he went on, tellingly, to say that he believed that, so far, the giving had been one-sided.
  On the views of our electorate on the mainland of Britain, I refer the House to a Gallup poll that was printed in The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago on Friday 6 November. The article, which was written by Anthony King, who is Professor of Government at Essex University and a well-known authority on these matters, stated:
  "There is overwhelming hostility to the early release of convicted terrorist prisoners. In the view of three quarters of Britons, prisoner releases should be halted until all terrorist weapons have been decommissioned.
  Gallup's data shows large numbers of voters are uneasy about some of the Blair Government's actions in connection with peace negotiations … Only 21 per cent. of people in Britain believe that the IRA 'has permanently renounced terrorism' and all but a tiny minority believe that terrorist organisations should be required to decommission all their weapons at once.
  The majority view is that weapons decommissioning should be complete before any further concessions are made to Sinn Fein and the IRA. Seventy per cent. are hostile to Sinn Fein joining any new devolved government in Northern Ireland pending the surrender of weapons and even more, 74 per cent., opposed further prisoner releases until the same condition is met."
  Ms Moran: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Moss: We are running short of time, so if the hon. Lady does not mind, I will make progress.
  In this House, we have a responsibility to represent the views of the electorate on the mainland of Great Britain. On prisoner release, it is time that we shot the fox that
  368
  appears in every debate on the subject, probably due to the Labour Whip's notes. There is a fundamental difference between the prisoner releases that took place under the previous Government and those that are taking place now. That difference has been reiterated this evening and I shall explain it again so that, in future, Labour Members will tell their Whips, "No, we've had that debate", and say that they do not need that piece of paper any more.
  Under the previous Government, no life prisoners had their sentences reduced. When there was a ceasefire, some concessions were made in the negotiations, but we simply resumed remission levels of 50 per cent., as they had dropped to one third when we faced increased violence. That is the position on prisoner release under the previous Government, so let us have no more red herrings.
  The argument of the Secretary of State seemed to hinge on the definition of a ceasefire. She referred to the agreement and the linkage between prisoner release and a ceasefire and prisoner release and decommissioning. To return to the Prime Minister's statement on 6 May, which was:
  "It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that, of course".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
  I simply do not understand how, on the one hand we can talk about a ceasefire, and on the other reject the definition of giving up violence for good. Only last week, during Northern Ireland Question Time the Secretary of State said:
  "I am not saying … that decommissioning should wait until last. We want it to happen as soon as possible and it is an essential part of the agreement. It is not a precondition but an obligation."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 873.]
  She repeated the word "obligation" this evening.
  If it is an obligation, why was the right hon. Lady unable to answer my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) when he asked her not once, not twice, but three times the fundamental and crucial question that we posed on other occasions and again tonight: is it possible that all the prisoners could be released with no weapons or explosives having been decommissioned? Perhaps she will answer yes or no in her reply to the debate so that we can have it on record.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said that there was not a time scale but a time limit. The agreement talks in terms of a two-year limit. Are we suggesting that, at the end of two years, if prisoner release continues at its present rate, it is likely that all the prisoners will be out? Are we saying, and are the hon. Member for South Down and the Secretary of State saying, that it is highly possible that, at the end of two years, all the prisoners will have been released with no decommissioning at all having taken place? That is the fundamental question. It has been posed on many occasions and we have never received an answer.
  The motion has been criticised by the Liberal Democrats. Would not the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Opik) like an answer to that question? Does he know the answer? If he does, perhaps he will intervene. We would like an answer and that is why we tabled the motion. Indeed, that is why we shall vote on it. However, if as we expect, it is defeated, we shall not oppose the amended motion that may come in its wake.
  6.42 pm
  Marjorie Mowlam: With the leave of the House I shall respond to the debate. As I said at the start, it has provided a welcome opportunity to examine the progress that we are making on the Good Friday agreement. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that progress is more rapid in some areas than in others. Whether we are talking about the shadow executive, the shadow assembly, the north-south implementation bodies, the north-south ministerial council, human rights, the Equality Commission, decommissioning, prisoner releases, the police or criminal justice reviews, we need to make progress on all those fronts together if the Good Friday agreement is to succeed.
  The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) must accept that, while a complete and unequivocal ceasefire is being maintained—he agrees that it is—the agreement requires that prisoner releases continue. He cannot say that he supports the agreement and then refuse to accept what the parties actually agreed. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to live with that contradiction in opposition, but the Government must remain consistent with the agreement.
  The hon. Members for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) quoted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself extensively. The Prime Minister's pledges and my statements are compatible with the agreement. The Opposition motion is not and that is why we cannot support it. Our position is clear. Progress needs to be made on all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Earlier in the debate, I accepted that progress had been uneven. The answer is not to slow down on the issues on which progress has been made, but to speed up progress on the rest and eliminate the inequality. People need time and space to implement the agreement and the fact that they are being harried as a result of tonight's debate will achieve nothing.
  I echo the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) about punishment beatings, or mutilations as he referred to them. I keep the matter under continuous review, particularly after the events at the weekend with the Loyalist Volunteer Force. Next week, I shall meet all the parties attached to paramilitary groups to discuss precisely that issue as it is of deep concern to us.
  I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and the right hon. Members for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) and for Bridgwater (Mr. King) for their speeches, which were honest and tried to show the complexity of the situation that they faced in government and some of the current difficulties. As two out of those three said, we would like more and quicker progress, but we can move only as quickly as the political leaders in the talks process. We shall do everything we can to encourage and facilitate that.
  Several Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, said that the House was being denied the right to debate the issue. Of course it is not. However, if hon. Members vote for the motion, they will be voting to rewrite the Good Friday agreement and that cannot be done.
  370
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) raised a specific point about Aughnacloy. All normalisation measures are taken on the advice of the Chief Constable and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he guards his independence jealously and makes his own decisions. The demolition of the permanent vehicle checkpoint at Aughnacloy was his decision based on his professional judgment. Far from concealing it, the decision was announced on 20 September, but had been in the public domain for some weeks. Any future de-escalation measures will also be based on security advice.
  Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I must make progress as time is short.
  The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) asked about the timetable for prisoner releases. The timetable for the accelerated release of prisoners is the responsibility of the Sentence Review Commission, acting in accordance with the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act. He asked, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), whether all prisoners will be out in two years' time. The short answer is no. Many will still be in prison and the date is reviewable if progress is not made. Difficulties will arise if there is not sufficient confidence for progress to be made on all parts of the agreement before then.
  Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not giving way.
  As I said earlier, I welcome the debate. It is right that we record what progress is being made on the Good Friday agreement. There is a long way to go, but the talks are continuing and I believe that the will is there to reach an agreement. Of course people on both sides are scared of the present position. They fear that progress is being stalled. It is a genuine fear that is common to both communities, but people are even more anxious that progress will not be made and that the process will move backwards. That is why I appeal to all those involved in the talks and all those holding positions of authority in Northern Ireland to do all that they can to make progress on all aspects of the Good Friday agreement.
  When one talks to people in Northern Ireland, they express a lack of confidence in the agreement. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) who mentioned their desire for normality. Despite the rude comments from Opposition Members, I agree with what she said about those in Warrington who suffered in the same way as people in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we should discuss whether a life lost in Northern Ireland is of more or less value than a life lost in Warrington or Canary wharf. We in the House treat the deaths of people and the sadness that it produces with equal seriousness and determination to ensure that progress is made. Therefore, I ask the House to support the Government amendment tonight and vote against the Opposition motion.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I want to bring again to the attention of the House what is in the agreement. We have had a lot of discussion tonight about that. Let us look at what it contains on the release of prisoners. It says clearly:
  "Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements."
  That is the arrangements for prisoner release. It is beyond doubt that the organisations at present benefiting from the arrangements are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Those ceasefires are being breached. Complete and unequivocal surely should mean an end to violence—that violence is not being perpetrated by those organisations.
  As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, Families Against Intimidation and Terror, an independent organisation partly funded by the very Government whose task it is to oversee the release of prisoners, has demonstrated that all these organisations are engaged in violence. They are breaching their ceasefires on a regular basis. I do not see how the Government can claim that the organisations benefiting from the release of their terrorist prisoners are maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Surely "unequivocal" means that there is no equivocation on the question of violence. Yet the statistics for the last month alone clearly demonstrate that all those organisations that the Secretary of State has deemed to be maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire are continuing to engage in acts of violence.
  Mr. Maginnis: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Secretary of State endeavours to evade her responsibilities by blaming the Chief Constable, the Chief Constable was unequivocal in pointing his finger after the Belfast-Donegal Celtic football team affair? He made it clear that the Provisional IRA had intimidated the members of that team into changing their decision.
  Mr. Donaldson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. It refers to an issue that was pointed up by Government Members when they talked about the new change happening in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) talked about the new changes. Yes, there are new changes, but unfortunately some of the mindsets have not changed. The action of Sinn Fein-IRA in dealing with the Donegal—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may think that it is funny that footballers who want to play a game of football are intimidated. I do not think that it is funny and neither do the footballers or the members of the Donegal Celtic football club. If the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) wishes to intervene, I will give way to him, but since he remains seated it is obvious—
  Mr. McCabe: Am I right in thinking that, in condemning intimidation, the hon. Gentleman is even handed and also condemns the outrageous intimidation at Drumcree and the outrageous attacks on the RUC in the past week, which the Chief Constable has condemned?
  Mr. Donaldson: Indeed, without any equivocation, I condemn all acts of violence against the RUC or any person in Northern Ireland. My record on condemning violence is there for anyone to check. It has been consistent.
  In reference to the Donegal Celtic affair, the IRA is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. When it signed up to the agreement, Sinn Fein said that it was committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. How can it be democratic when it intimidates and sets about beating people up and shooting them?
  Ms Moran: I acknowledge the violence that the hon. Gentleman describes, but does he agree with the comments of Senator George Mitchell at the Richard Dimbleby lecture? He said:
  "But to succumb to the temptation to retaliate would give the criminals what they want: escalating sectarian violence and the end of the peace process."
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are in grave danger of giving the terrorists what they want by trying to dismember the Northern Ireland agreement, as the motion attempts to do? Does he agree that it would be better if we acknowledged the more than 71 per cent. support for the whole of the agreement and did not divide the House on such an important issue so that we could make progress?
  Mr. Donaldson: No one is talking about retaliation by the use of violence and intimidation. May I quote to the hon. Lady the words of one Donegal Celtic footballer? He said:
  "we all received the phone threats and we know who threatened us. In fact he was only released from jail recently. That is why we took the threat so seriously because we all knew who this man was and what he was capable of."
  This man is the sort of person who is being released from prison and engaging in intimidation. According to Families Against Intimidation and Terror, a number of prisoners have been involved in so-called punishment attacks. Yet the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 says that they must refrain from violence. There is a lot of duplicity here.
  When we talk about the agreement, let us also talk about the legislation that has been passed by the House, namely, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act. People ask where is the link between decommissioning and prisoner releases. It is in the law passed by this House. A link has been created between the release of prisoners and decommissioning. The Act that this House passed and the Government proposed says:
  "The Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation… is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997".
  In my opinion, none of the organisations benefiting from prisoner releases are co-operating fully with that commission. Some of them have not even appointed a liaison officer to the international commission.
  What I and the decent people of Northern Ireland, including those who voted for the agreement, want to know is when the Secretary of State will fulfil the obligations placed on her by the House and ensure that those organisations benefiting from prisoner releases start to co-operate fully with the international commission and

  373
  that we start to make progress on the question of arms. There is a link between decommissioning and prisoner releases. Tenuous though it may be, it is there. The Government are under an obligation to ensure that we make progress on decommissioning. As the Opposition say, if we do not, the Government have to review the question of prisoner releases. There cannot be a blank cheque.
  One Labour Member talked about turning the key. The problem for many people in Northern Ireland is that the key that is being turned is the key to the cells in the Maze prison and that prisoners are being let out. Nothing is being given in response by terrorist organisations by way of decommissioning and an end to violence, threats, punishment beatings, shootings and maimings. All those things continue and have increased since the agreement was signed. That is not an end to violence. It is not peace. It is intimidation and violence and, for as long as it continues, the Government must review the whole question of prisoner releases.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. MacKay rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 376.

  Division No. 19]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Amess, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gibb, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gray, James

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John

  Butterfill, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Cash, William

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Chope, Christopher

  Hammond, Philip

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Hayes, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Collins, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Duncan, Alan

  Key, Robert

  374

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Loughton, Tim

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Syms, Robert

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maginnis, Ken

  Townend, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Maples, John

  Trend, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Walter, Robert

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Wardle, Charles

  Wells, Bowen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Norman, Archie

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Paice, James

  Wilshire, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Prior, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Randall, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Mr. Nigel Waterson and

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Borrow, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov-try NE)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allan, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Breed, Colin

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ashton, Joe

  Browne, Desmond

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burgon, Colin

  Austin, John

  Burnett, John

  Baker, Norman

  Burstow, Paul

  Ballard, Jackie

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Banks, Tony

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Barnes, Harry

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Barron, Kevin

  Caborn, Richard

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cann, Jamie

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Casale, Roger

  Benton, Joe

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chaytor, David

  Betts, Clive

  Chidgey, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Boateng, Paul

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  375

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hanson, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coleman, Iain

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cranston, Ross

  Hinchliffe, David

  Crausby, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hope, Phil

  Cummings, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov-try S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Darvill, Keith

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Illsley, Eric

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ingram, Adam

  Denham, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jamieson, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Doran, Frank

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Edwards, Huw

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ennis, Jeff

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Etherington, Bill

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Keetch, Paul

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fisher, Mark

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Laxton, Bob

  Gapes, Mike

  Lepper, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Leslie, Christopher

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Levitt, Tom

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gerard, Neil

  Linton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Livsey, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lock, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McAllion, John

  Gorrie, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCabe, Steve

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Grocott, Bruce

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  McFall, John

  Gunnell, John

  McGrady, Eddie

  376

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ruane, Chris

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Salter, Martin

  McWalter, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  McWilliam, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Singh, Marsha

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Shef-ld Heeley)

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Snape, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Miller, Andrew

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moffatt, Laura

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moore, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stott, Roger

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mullin, Chris

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Norris, Dan

  Stunell, Andrew

  Oaten, Mark

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Timms, Stephen

  Pearson, Ian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pendry, Tom

  Todd, Mark

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  Pike, Peter L

  Truswell, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Vaz, Keith

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wallace, James

  Purchase, Ken

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Radice, Giles

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rammell, Bill

  Webb, Steve

  Rapson, Syd

  White, Brian

  Raynsford, Nick

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Willis, Phil

  Rogers, Allan

  Wills, Michael

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  377

  Wise, Audrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wood, Mike

  Wray, James

  Mr. Keith Hill and

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 352, Noes 7.

  Division No. 20]

  [7.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Chaytor, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Chidgey, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Allan, Richard

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Portlands)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Austin, John

  Clelland, David

  Baker, Norman

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cohen, Harry

  Banks, Tony

  Coleman, Iain

  Barnes, Harry

  Colman, Tony

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbett, Robin

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cousins, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Crausby, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Betts, Clive

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blackman, Liz

  Darvill, Keith

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davidson, Ian

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Borrow, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dobbin, Jim

  Breed, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnett, John

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burstow, Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Etherington, Bill

  Caborn, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Flint, Caroline

  Cann, Jamie

  Flynn, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  378

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lepper, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike

  Levitt, Tom

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Linton, Martin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livsey, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lock, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Love, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAllion, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCabe, Steve

  Gorrie, Donald

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  McGrady, Eddie

  Grogan, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gunnell, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hain, Peter

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hancock, Mike

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McWilliam, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Healey, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Maxton, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Home Robertson, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Shef-ld Heeley)

  Hope, Phil

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milburn, Alan

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, Adam

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jamieson, David

  Norris, Dan

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Oaten, Mark

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pendry, Tom

  Keetch, Paul

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pike, Peter L

  Khabra, Piara S

  Plaskitt, James

  Kidney, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Laxton, Bob

  Purchase, Ken

  379

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stringer, Graham

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Radice, Giles

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rapson, Syd

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruane, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Trickett, Jon

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Truswell, Paul

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolveth'ton SE)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr George (Norfolk)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Vaz, Keith

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Singh, Marsha

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wills, Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stevenson, George

  Wise, Audrey

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wood, Mike

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wray, James

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mr. Keith Hill and

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Thompson, William

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Forsythe, Clifford

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk-b'ry)

  Mr. William Ross and

  Robinson. Peter (Belfast E)

  Rev. Martin Smyth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises that the Good Friday Agreement represents an historic opportunity to bring agreed government and political stability to Northern Ireland; acknowledges the progress which has been made by the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties in reaching and implementing the Agreement; and believes the only way forward for the people of Northern Ireland to find lasting peace is for the Governments and the parties to move urgently to implement every aspect of the Agreement in full.
  Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the excellent decision on Pinochet, which has delighted all those who believe in the rule of international law, is the matter still sub judice? Has anything changed? If it is no longer sub judice, we would
  380
  like to have the opportunity to congratulate the Home Secretary on a decision that we believe to be absolutely right.
  Sir Patrick Cormack:Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the possibly irreparable damage that has been done to our relations with a friendly democratic country, will the Foreign Secretary come to the House and make a statement?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The matter is still sub judice and this is not the time to discuss it.

Tax Harmonisation
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Micheal Lord): We now come to the debate on tax harmonisation. Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.25 pm
Mr. Francis Maude: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's attempts to be all things to all men on the issue of EU tax harmonisation; urges the Government to explain what confidence can be placed in Ministers' undertakings to use the veto, given the Chancellor's decision to sign up to the Party of European Socialists' "New European Way" document and given the EU Tax Commissioner's insistence that the UK is "fully on board" for progress towards tax harmonisation; asks the Government to place in the Library the list of 85 instances of alleged "harmful tax competition" identified by the Code of Conduct Working Group chaired by the Financial Secretary, ten of which are believed to relate to the UK; and urges the Government to make a clear statement of its policy towards EU tax harmonisation.
The House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy to the Chancellor and his family on their recent bereavement, which is the reason for his absence. We all want to send our condolences to him on that sad event.
The issue that we are discussing tonight sums up so much of what is wrong with the Government. On issue after issue, they try to have it both ways. In Europe, Ministers signed "The New European Way" and Commissioner Monti said that the United Kingdom is fully on board for the Commission's tax proposals, but those Ministers come back here and talk tough about using the veto. It is significant that such talk is always surrounded by weasel words that give them a let out for later.
The Government are starting to find that they cannot fool all of the people all the time. Sooner or later, decisions have to be made. Many of the tax harmonisation issues will come to a head in the next six months, so the Government need to make a clear statement of where they stand. They have an opportunity to do so today. The time for weasel words is over.
Mr. Tony McNulty: Sit down then.
Mr. Maude: I suspect that that comment is the peak of wit from those on the Government Benches. Judges used to ask, "Is that your best point?"; I suspect that it probably was.
I ask the Chief Secretary to address the chief issues and to have another crack at answering the question that we asked him last week, which he signally failed to answer: do the Government believe that the single currency requires tax harmonisation? It is not compulsory to believe that; plenty of people do not. Last week, however, the Chief Secretary provided two answers. First, he shook his head and then he nodded it. One can select the answer that one thinks is most appropriate. Let us see whether he can do any better today. I am watching him very carefully and he is not moving at all. He has had a week to think about the question, so when he makes his speech, he should answer it.
382
The Minister's colleagues on the continent think that economic and monetary union requires a degree of tax harmonisation. The German Finance Minister, Mr. Lafontaine, has said that the unified currency area needs a fair and equal tax framework.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Maude: I do not know whether Labour Members have the same list of interventions as they had last week, but on this occasion they have not done us the courtesy of supplying it in advance. Perhaps we can hear the first one now.
Mr. James Plaskitt: How assiduous was the right hon. Gentleman in his campaign against tax harmonisation in 1992 when the Conservative Government signed up for minimum duty rates for alcohol, tobacco and fuel?
Mr. Maude: We always accepted that there was a case for minimal tax harmonisation. [Interruption.] Labour Members think that they have hit on something incredibly novel and miraculous, but it is perfectly well known that there was a case for minimal tax harmonisation for the development of the single market. We agreed to minimal movements, and that is simply a matter of history. Labour Members cannot wriggle away from the question that they now face; they are now the Government. The issue under consideration is a further programme of severe tax harmonisation in Europe. They have to answer the question. Do they support tax harmonisation or not? We are getting two different answers in two different places. They talk to their colleagues on the continent and clearly encourage them to believe that they are signed up to it; they then come back here and say something different.
If Labour Members spent any time talking to business men—now that the Paymaster General seems to be on his way out, there may be fewer opportunities for them to do so—they would find that business men are getting worried about the whole process. Because of the social chapter, they have already seen a levelling up of social and employment regulation, which has whittled away Britain's comparative advantage. Business men are beginning to see what would happen under the provisions to which the Government are committing themselves across the channel—they see the prospect of a levelling up of our taxation, which means the removal of exactly the things that have given Britain a comparative advantage in attracting investment.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the two instances of tax harmonisation that we have seen—the signing up to the abolition of duty free and the imposition of value added tax on fuel—took place under his Government?
Mr. Maude: The issues today—[Laughter.] The reality is that the Government cannot get to grips with the fact that they are now in power. They have custody of those matters and have to come clean with the country on what they are planning to do. It will not do to keep on using weasel words and failing to answer questions.
Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maude: No, I shall continue. I suspect that Labour Members are simply reading from the same hymn sheet.

383
We now know that when one gives way to one Labour Back Bencher, one might as well give way to all of them as they all read from one list. We can take one as proxy for them all because they are clearly too stupid to think up questions for themselves.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—look, no list. Will he confirm that the reason that there was an agreement on duty free at the time by the previous Conservative Government was that it was conditional on the Commission's making a detailed analysis of how it would affect individual countries and on its then coming forward with a report? We have never had that report—the Commission failed in its duty.
Mr. Maude: There was not only a commitment to supply an economic impact report of the effects of abolition of duty free on various countries but a commitment to bring forward proposals for a successor regime. That has not been done. The Government have only just cottoned on to that, and I shall have something to say about that later.
Let us hear from the Chief Secretary whether he agrees with the German Finance Minister that the
"unified currency area needs a fair and equal tax framework".
Does he agree with the Austrian Finance Minister, who said that economic and monetary union will
"make it imperative to start co-ordinating the sphere of taxation. The social democrat governments"—
that is rather chilling—
"will also have to look at harmonising prices and wage policy"?
That is what some of the Chief Secretary's joint signatories to the "The New European Way" say, but we have not heard what the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor say. Let us hear it tonight.
We also need to hear about a related matter. Do the Government seriously believe in tax competition? We heard the Prime Minister claim that he believes in it—he said so today. One wonders whether he has read the excellent recent paper by Mr. Marsden called "Is Tax Competition Harmful?", an issue that should be exercising the Financial Secretary at this time.
Mr. Marsden points out that, while the European Union is tackling cartels and encouraging competition in other parts of the economy, the reverse is true in the case of taxation. He shows that low tax economies consistently out-perform higher tax economies. What does the Chief Secretary think? Does he agree?
If the Chief Secretary genuinely believes in tax competition, as the Prime Minister today claimed that he did, why, in the one sphere where convergence would benefit Britain—excise duties, which were mentioned earlier—has he reversed the gradual convergence of British levels of excise duty with those of our continental trading partners? He has not only abandoned it but reversed it, so the gap is widening to Britain's disadvantage.
As we are talking about tax competition, it is good that the Financial Secretary is responding to the debate. She has been a somewhat elusive figure recently. The Government have gone a bit quiet about it now but, a few
384
months ago, they were boasting about the fact that the Financial Secretary had been selected to chair the working group on the code of conduct on harmful tax competition. The Government thought that that was a great triumph for Britain. They were bragging about it and saying that it was great news for us. They have gone a bit quieter recently because it has turned out to be rather controversial and, for the Financial Secretary, rather embarrassing.
The Financial Secretary's group, we read, has identified 85 instances of harmful tax competition and 10 are said to relate to Britain. It would be lovely to hear her confirm or deny that. Those 10 items include tax breaks for the film industry, which were introduced by the Financial Secretary herself last year. Will she now publish the list of 85 instances of harmful tax competition? Is she prepared to publish it today so that the House can find out whether 10 such measures have been identified by her own working group? What is the Government's response? Is the Financial Secretary going to defend the very measures that she introduced last year but the group that she chairs has this year identified as being unacceptable? The country wants to know.
The Government spent a great deal of time last year boasting about what a wonderful scheme it was, about the jobs and investment that it would bring and the fact that it would revitalise the film industry in this country, but now the Financial Secretary says that it has to be scrapped. It was a bit short lived—what about all the long-termism that she has mentioned?
Mr. Paul Marsden rose—
Mr. Maude: This has turned into a short debate, which is a pity because it is on such an important subject. I must continue.
Will the Government publish an assessment of the impact of the removal of the 10 measures on jobs and investment? The film industry is important and we want to know about it, but what about shipping? What about the tax relief on reinvestment in ships, which the Labour party supported enthusiastically when it was introduced? That is apparently on the list and has to go.
The Financial Secretary must have been able to organise an assessment because she has been chairing the committee that has identified the problem. While she was doing that wearing one hat, presumably her officials in the Treasury could have been making an assessment of the impact on jobs and investment. The House wants to know.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would also be useful if the Financial Secretary told the House why she told European Standing Committee B only a few months ago that the very committee that she was chairing would have no effect on domestic tax legislation? [Interruption.]
Mr. Maude: We hear from the Financial Secretary that it is apparently true that there will be no effect on Britain. I take that as a refutation of the suggestion that any of the 10 measures in question affect Britain. Will she confirm that?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I shall speak later.
Mr. Maude: We shall be looking for a definitive answer then. From a sedentary position, she confirmed that what she said last year was absolutely true, so none of this affects Britain at all. Let us hear a definitive answer.
While we are on the subject of harmful tax competition, as it is called by the Labour Government and their European partners—
Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
Mr. Maude: I must continue. I cheerfully gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) because I know that he is capable of thinking up intelligent remarks for himself. We now know that Labour Members intervene only when comments have been handed out in written form beforehand.
Let us put paid to the idea that the Prime Minister again tried to put about at Question Time today, suggesting that the code of conduct on so-called harmful tax competition was produced under the previous Government. That is absolute rubbish—it was blocked when the previous Government were in office. It was signed up to by this Government. This Government thought that it was a great idea, and they signed up to it in December last year. Indeed, in announcing the decision, their press release said that Britain had signed up to the code of conduct "for the first time". They are condemned by their own mouth. Once again, the Prime Minister has given the House a misleading impression.
Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maude: No, I shall continue. Giving way to the hon. Gentleman is very tempting, but I shall resist the temptation on this occasion.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers)rose—
Mr. Maude: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Byers: It must be recorded that the group on the code of conduct was first discussed during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that was in November 1992, when the Conservatives were in office, and that they did nothing to block the proposal?
Mr. Maude: The proposal may have been discussed, but it was blocked while the Conservatives were in power. It was not signed until this Government were in office. They are condemned by the boast in their press release. It is very generous of them to want to share the credit, even though they tried to take it all for themselves when they announced the decision.
Mr. Byers: Once again, for the record, I refer to the ECOFIN meeting of 23 November 1992 and the agreement signed by the then Conservative Government. It was agreed that "the above criteria", which lists
386
potential harmful tax matters, should be applied to the consideration of whether issues merit action and the level at which identified problems might be resolved, including those measures which are best taken on the basis of voluntary co-operative action. That is what the Conservatives agreed to during their EU presidency in 1992.
Mr. Maude: The more that the right hon. Gentleman reads out, the more it confirms the point. The Conservatives were committed to nothing in the nature of what this Government have signed up to. Britain signed up to such a damaging measure only when this Government came into office. They were then unwise enough to put the Financial Secretary in charge, with the result that the issue has come straight back like a boomerang, in condemnation of some of their very favourite measures.
Will the Chief Secretary spare us the weasel words that we have heard from him and his colleagues—[Interruption.] We have heard so much equivocation and qualification.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maude: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
On this and related subjects, we need some straight answers. Last week, the Chief Secretary said:
"If necessary, we will be prepared to use our veto to protect the national interest."
That was a fudge. He cannot say when he will use the veto, what he is in favour of, or what he is against. He also said:
"if the draft directive on the withholding tax remains in its present form, we will veto that directive."—[Official Report, 1 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 697–99.]
The directive will clearly not remain precisely in its present form. Will he veto the withholding tax? It is a very simple question. He cannot seek refuge, as he always does, in the qualification and equivocation that we have so much come to expect from the Government.
Will the Chief Secretary explain why, so very recently, but before all this subject became so controversial and uncomfortable for the Government, he and his colleagues were prepared to sign up to what amounted to a clear commitment in "The New European Way", which was launched with so much bragging, boasting and razzmatazz? We are told that that great document was drafted by the Chancellor's team in the Treasury. It is not for us to say whether its authorship, like another famous document, is "all Balls". The document states:
"We must make further progress in tax and benefit reform … by co-ordinating savings and corporate taxation".
We now know from what Mr. Lafontaine set out yesterday that, in Labour's lexicon, co-ordination of taxation and harmonisation of taxation are the same thing. The Government find co-ordination much less embarrassing to talk about—but the commitment is there.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Maude: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall continue.

387
Will the Chief Secretary explain—he has utterly failed to do so—why the Prime Minister, in his address to the French National Assembly earlier this year, was explicit in committing the Government to protecting the veto only in respect of personal taxation? Does the Chief Secretary accept that that shows that everything else is negotiable?
A few months later, the report of the Labour party's national policy forum on Europe, which was presented to the Labour party conference and formally adopted as party policy, narrowed down the area of tax policy even more. It talked of member states retaining control over only "personal tax rates". Today, the joint letter signed by the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schröder narrowed it down even more. That great document was supposed to get the Prime Minister out of the hole in which he has found himself on this issue—yet, it makes matters worse. It says:
"At no time have we considered measures to harmonise personal income tax".
The weaselling continues. First, the Prime Minister is protecting personal taxes, then personal tax rates. Now personal income tax is all that is being protected. Does not the Chief Secretary understand that the more that the Government narrow down the areas of tax policy to which they attach importance, the greater the suspicion that everything else is negotiable?
Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Maude: No; I have given way several times and this is a short debate.
Why cannot the Chief Secretary say, as he has apparently been ready to say about the budget rebate, that such matters are simply not negotiable? Does he not understand that the rebate on which he stands so proudly was negotiated only because the Prime Minister of the day was ready to fight for it?
Today, I hope that the Chief Secretary will give some straight answers to the questions that he failed to answer last week. Will he use the veto to protect Britain's rates of stamp duty on house purchases? Will he use the veto to protect Britain's VAT rates? Will he use the veto to protect jobs in the City of London from the imposition of the withholding tax? Will he say no to the equally damaging fudge on exchange of information, which further analysis makes increasingly clear would pile up extra transaction costs and drive business out of the UK?
What assurance can the Chief Secretary give that our veto on tax will remain? Does he agree with the German Finance Minister, who clearly thinks that it should go? He said:
"It is my personal view that we eventually must go to qualified majority voting on the sensitive issue of taxes".
That was not just a personal view after all, because the German Chancellor agrees. He said:
"I must stress that the finance minister has the backing of the Government when he demands steps in this direction."
The Finnish Government, who will take over the EU presidency in July, have put moving to QMV on tax matters high on the agenda. They say:
"Majority voting on taxation is not a question of if but of when".
388
Until the whistle was blown on them, the Government were merrily proceeding down the path of ever greater tax harmonisation. Why should they have committed themselves to protecting only such a narrow range of taxes from majority voting if they were not really saying, with a nudge and a wink, that everything else was negotiable? Why did the Prime Minister refer just to personal taxes when he spoke in the French National Assembly—as if that was not sending the clearest signal possible that the rest was open to negotiation?
That there is such a programme of tax harmonisation in the EU is now beyond question. That the Government have given the impression that they will go along with much of it is utterly clear. When Commissioner Monti and Mr. Strauss-Kahn claimed that Britain is "on board" for the EU's tax proposals, and when Mr. Strauss-Kahn said that he was confident that Britain would be signed up to tax harmonisation by the middle of next year, were they running scare stories? Were such claims the tools that The Sun used to generate scare stories in this country? That is absurd. In fact, Commissioner Monti and Mr. Strauss-Kahn have let the cat out of the bag.
I wonder whether Ministers understand—
Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maude: No, I shall not give way.
I wonder whether Ministers understand how offensive it is to people, and how demeaning it is, that the Government have had to beg our European partners to moderate their language—"Not in front of the children, because it will upset them"—as though the German Ministers' honesty and openness in this matter threatened to upset the concerted deception that the Government have maintained.
As so often, the Government have been trying to be all things to all men, but it is decision time. Let us for once have clear answers to simple questions. I commend the motion to the House.
7.50 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
recalls that the last Government's record on tax was one of broken promises, that it raised taxes 22 times having promised to cut taxes, including putting VAT on domestic fuel and power having specifically promised not to do so, and further that it tried to raise VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent.; welcomes the fact that this Government has kept all of its promises on taxation, including its promises not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax and cutting VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.; and further welcomes the Government's approach to taxation at an international level, favouring fair tax competition, supporting concerted action at European level, including through the EU Code of Conduct Group, to deal with discriminatory and unfair tax practices that distort real competition, stating that it will not support measures that are not in Britain's national economic interest or that damage British business, harm investment and jobs, or damage Europe's competitiveness, and reiterating that it will retain the veto on tax issues and that decisions on tax will remain subject to unanimity.
At the start of this debate, in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to have led for the Government, I associate myself with the remarks made by the shadow Chancellor; I am sure that the whole House wishes to express its condolences to my right hon. Friend and the rest of his family.

389
In tonight's debate, I shall set out the Government's position on taxation, not just in relation to Europe but on domestic taxation. I shall specifically address the issues of tax harmonisation and of unfair tax practices, including tax abuse and evasion. I know that the issue of tax evasion and tax havens excites Conservative Members; they have been raising it indirectly, in one way or another for a long time. I can understand their personal interest, because of course—
Mr. Nick Gibb: What about the Paymaster General? Where is he?
Mr. Byers: There we have a good example. It is of personal interest to members of the Conservative party, because the present Treasurer of the Conservative party, Michael Ashcroft, has for many years been a tax exile, preferring to pay his taxes in Belize rather than Bristol.
The real issue that the Conservative party needs to address is why the party's latest accounts show a cash donation of £1 million by a connected party of Michael Ashcroft. No identity is disclosed. Why the secrecy? The only logical conclusion is that the donor, whether a company or an individual, is registered in a tax haven, and does not pay a penny in taxes in the United Kingdom. In my view, our democratic process must not be for sale to the highest bidder. I hope that the Tory party will come clean on that donation. We challenge the Leader of the Opposition to disclose the detail.
I want to place on the record tonight our position in relation to domestic taxation and on the issues in relation to Europe that were raised by the shadow Chancellor in his opening speech.
In place of the old spending philosophy, which sought to justify a policy of irresponsible tax and spend, this Government take a different, and principled, approach to public spending. Today—unlike 20 years ago—no national Government can set tax, spending and borrowing policies in isolation. They do so in a competitive global economy, within which we must justify policies for expenditure and taxation not just to our electorate but to a wider audience.
Mrs. Browning: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers: May I make some progress? Then I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
Today, an irresponsible approach to tax, spending and borrowing—which is, in any case, the wrong approach—will be swiftly punished by financial markets. By contrast, a Government who take a prudent and sensible approach will enjoy the benefits in lower long-term interest rates and higher investment, which flow from the benefits of credibility.
The Government believe that efficiency and value for money in public spending are of central importance. Every penny spent must be justified by its objectives, priorities and efficiency. The Government have a responsibility to the public to use public money as efficiently as possible; and when, shortly, we publish the
390
new public service agreements, we shall show exactly what the public can expect to get from the additional money that is being put into those services.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) first.
Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Gentleman has moved on, but before he moves too far from his point about Michael Ashcroft, may I ask him whether he and his colleagues understand a fundamental point about the difference between someone like Michael Ashcroft and the present Paymaster General when it comes to overseas funds? Michael Ashcroft is a private citizen. The Paymaster General, who also has offshore trusts, currently presides over a policy that deprives some of my constituents—some of the poorest pensioners in the land—of £75 a year. That is the difference.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister responds, I think it would be a good idea if we returned to the subject of tax harmonisation.
Mr. Byers: I shall certainly do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but first I shall point out to the hon. Lady that it was the Leader of the Opposition who said that there would be no secrecy as regards Conservative party accounts. I want to move on to the issues that I know are energising Conservative Members, because they want to get away from the fact that a secret £1 million donation in their accounts has been revealed; and I want to rush to address the issues that were raised by the shadow Chancellor.
The reality—
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Byers: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) if he wants to intervene now.
Mr. Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman introduced his remarks with talk about the fiscal rectitude that the Government were going to adopt on public expenditure. The Economic Secretary has been unable to give me an answer as to how long the economic cycle is. As that is rather germane to balancing the books over the economic cycle, how long is the economic cycle?
Mr. Byers: I thought that there was going to be a question about tax harmonisation so that we could satisfy the shadow Chancellor and his Front-Bench colleagues.
I want to address the issue of taxation. Let me start by saying clearly what our manifesto pledge was. We said that the principle of a tax system must be to encourage work. We said clearly in our manifesto that the whole purpose of a tax system must be to encourage work and reward effort. We stated:
"we are pledged not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax throughout the next Parliament."
We have kept that promise, and will continue to do so throughout this Parliament. We have not raised, and we shall not raise, the top or basic rates of income tax throughout this Parliament.

391
We also said in our manifesto that we would reduce
"the high marginal rates at the bottom end of the earning scale".
We have kept that promise, too. As a result of the introduction of the working families tax credit—now opposed by the Opposition—national insurance reform and Britain's first-ever national minimum wage, the Government can give two very specific guarantees, on which we shall deliver. For families and their children, in a family where someone works full time, there is now a guaranteed income of at least £190 a week. To the same working family, we give a second guarantee: that no income tax will be paid on earnings below £220 a week. [Interruption.]
For the benefit of the shadow Chancellor, I am moving the amendment standing in the Prime Minister's name, and I am speaking to the amendment, which is in order because it has been accepted by the House authorities. I am making my own speech. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) may not like it, but I am placing on record the appalling tax record of the previous Conservative Government. I want to remind Opposition Members of their record, and of the contrast that is now exposed—
Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Byers: In a second.
This Government, by contrast with the previous Government, can be trusted by the British people on tax. If we make manifesto commitments on tax, those commitments will be met. That contrasts starkly with the Conservative Government's approach. That is why we shall meet the pledge in our manifesto:
"We renew our pledge not to extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books and newspapers and public transport fares",
and why we shall deliver on that promise.
We made a further commitment on VAT at the last election:
"We will cut VAT on fuel to five per cent, the lowest level allowed."
In the very first Budget after the election, we moved immediately to do precisely that. That is why we shall take no lectures from the Conservative party on tax.
In the 1992 general election, the Tories promised time and again that they would cut taxes. After that election, they broke that promise 22 times. That is why the British people will never trust the Tories on tax again. There can be—
Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Byers: I shall give way in a moment.
There can be no clearer demonstration than the Tories' approach to value added tax of the fact that they break their promises. In 1979, the Conservatives promised not to increase VAT. In the Budget following that promise, they doubled it. In 1991, the British people were made to suffer the consequences of the Tories' failure on the poll tax in an increase in VAT rates.
Mr. Paterson: We heard all this during the general election. Will the Minister address himself to the actions
392
that he and the Government have taken since they came to power on one area of tax which it rests entirely in the Government's hands to decide—fuel duties and vehicle excise duty? In that area, we now have taxes so high that it costs £252 more to fill up a truck in Britain than in France, and VED is six times as high here as it is in France. What is that doing to jobs and prosperity in a strategic industry such as road haulage?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman's intervention came very close to an argument in favour of harmonisation of taxes with Europe. That is an interesting approach.
I can understand why Conservative Members feel uncomfortable about having their manifesto pledges broken time and time again. I understand that it is not pleasant for them to have those matters drawn to their attention. However, we continue to remind them because it is the truth and it is why the British people do not trust the Tories on taxes.
It is interesting to look through the record, including the record of the time when the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Treasury Minister. Many steps were taken then which led to the harmonisation of taxes. Which party justified a European directive stating
"we are committed to the harmonisation of indirect taxes"?
It was, of course, the Conservative party when in government. It was a former Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that in 1992. Which party signed at least 18 taxation directives while it was in government? Once again, it was the Conservative party.
That is the same Conservative party that now criticises and makes dire warnings about VAT being imposed from Europe and the same Conservative party that did not match our pledge on VAT. The Conservative party's manifesto did not even mention VAT. Let us not forget that the Conservative Government signed up to a minimum rate of VAT across Europe.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress.
It was the Conservative party that signed up to extending qualified majority voting into 42 new areas while it was in government. That was done in the Single European Act 1985 and during the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Byers: No. I should make some progress.
The Conservatives are the party that signed the Maastricht treaty, and the person who signed it was the present shadow Chancellor. That is the reality. The Conservatives attack what they once supported and deplore what they once agreed. They disown what they were once proud of and complain about promises when the fact is that we have kept ours and they have broken theirs.
Mr. Cash: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Byers: As the shadow Chancellor would not give way to the hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to do so.
Mr. Cash: Does the Minister agree that, under the Maastricht treaty—under, I think, articles 103, 130 and

393
various others—it is clear that it is intended to co-ordinate economic policy? How can the right hon. Gentleman deny—it is the burden of his argument, as far as I understand it—that the proposals for tax harmonisation do not flow from the Maastricht treaty? What will he do about it?
Mr. Byers: I must begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for all the support that he gave us during the general election campaign, which was gratefully received. I am coming on, in literally 30 seconds, to address the issues relating to Europe in which I know the hon. Gentleman so likes to engage.
I move on to taxation in Europe. The arguments on issues concerning Europe should be based on common sense and not on narrow partisan politics. I want to take up some of the issues that have been raised concerning tax harmonisation. There has been a good deal of scaremongering, which we have heard this evening and over the past few weeks. I want to set out the principles that underpin the Government's approach. Our way forward for Europe is the promotion of employment, economic reforms and competitive markets, not tax harmonisation. The Government have made it clear that we shall not support any action at European level that will threaten jobs or the competitive position of British business. So any tax proposals will need to pass that fundamental test.
Mr. Tyrie rose—
Mr. Byers: No. I want to make some progress.
Questions of tax require a unanimous decision, so there is no question of tax changes that we do not support being imposed on us from Brussels. We are in favour of tax competition. We are in favour also of national Governments retaining control of taxation. Let us be clear: for the United Kingdom, that means taxation being decided when a British Chancellor of the Exchequer presents a Budget to this House.
Mr. John Bercow rose—
Mr. Byers: No. I want to make some progress.
We are also in favour of concerted action at European level to deal with unfair tax practices that distort real competition, to close tax loopholes and to cease unfair state aids and unfair tax breaks. The test always has to be whether in a particular instance the proposal delivers economic or financial benefits for the United Kingdom. If it does not, we shall oppose it and argue our case. The United Kingdom will not sign up to anything that is not in the national interest, that raises business costs, that harms investment and jobs or damages the competitive position of Europe.
I must give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) because I did not do so last time.
Mr. Bercow: If the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of tax competition, will he explain to the House why the Financial Secretary is prepared to relinquish up to 10 tax reliefs which work to the competitive advantage of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Byers: We certainly will not be doing that. I shall talk shortly about the group on the code of conduct. There
394
has been much play about the 10 directives that will affect people in Britain. These are the 10 issues that are being discussed within the group. To give right hon. and hon. Members a taste of what is to come, of the 10 directives, five refer specifically to Gibraltar. They come to us as a member state of the European Union. I shall deal with the relevant five directives in the relevant part of my speech.
We shall retain the veto on tax issues. If necessary, we shall be prepared to use our veto to protect the national interest. The Government are clear that decisions on tax will remain subject to the agreement of all member states.
The shadow Chancellor referred to the position of the Finnish presidency and said that it would want to raise the question of all-state agreement. I should draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the statement made on 4 December by the Finnish tax Minister, who said that Finland's position
"is that unanimous decisions will make sure a small country can get its voice heard. Our position has not changed on that."
I think that we can see that Finland will not use its presidency to argue that what is at present a requirement for all member states to agree will be changed. So we shall retain the veto on tax issues. If necessary, we shall be prepared to use that veto in the national interest.
The Government's approach to Europe is clear. It is far better to be there shaping and engaging in the debates than sitting powerless on the sidelines. If and when draft Commission proposals come forward, the Government will discuss them constructively. However, we shall always judge them by what is in Britain's national economic interest.
In our discussions on tax in Europe, it is important to remember that we are not alone in our approach. Not only Britain but many other member states oppose the harmonisation of tax rates. Last Wednesday the Italian Finance Minister told the Financial Times that harmonisation of corporation tax would be
"untimely, questionable and, above all, hardly feasible"
and that it would be
"wrong in any event."
On the same day the Prime Minister of Spain spoke out against what he called the "dumbing down" of tax harmonisation and opposed a single rate of direct tax because it would be a recipe for inefficiency. There is no majority for the harmonisation of tax rates in Europe, never mind the unanimous agreement that would be required for action. Nor will the need for all-member agreement change. That would require all states of the EU to agree on a change to qualified majority voting on tax, and most member states will not agree to that.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Chief Secretary has laid considerable stress on his claim that the Government support tax competition as a principle. Why did the Chancellor sign the document produced by the group of European socialist parties, titled "The New European Way", one of the principal purposes of which was to prepare the way for greater tax harmonisation? Why did the Chancellor sign a document that commits the Government to a policy that the Chief Secretary now says they oppose?
Mr. Byers: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is relying on the Conservative research

395
department brief, which has kindly been supplied to me. We seem to have a reciprocal agreement to exchange briefing notes between the official Opposition and the Government. If we co-ordinated it, perhaps we could save costs. Perhaps I should not say such things. 1 was pleased to take the right hon. Gentleman's intervention to get some balance in interventions from Conservative Members. We heard from an anti-European and have now heard from a pro-European—at least, I understand that that is the right hon. Gentleman's current position. The document that the Chancellor signed addressed issues not of tax harmonisation but of tax competition and if the right hon. Gentleman reads the document in detail, he will see that.
Mr. Dorrell: I was relying not on the Conservative research department but on the document provided in full on the internet. The Chief Secretary claims that it does not address tax harmonisation, but it addresses tax policy co-ordination—it is all in a word. A passage in the document specifically commits the signatories to greater tax policy co-ordination, but the Chief Secretary said that that is not Government policy. Did the Chancellor sign up in a fit of absent-mindedness? What is the Government's policy?
Mr. Byers: The policy is clear: we will judge every issue on its merits. We will exercise our veto over those that are not in the national interest, but we will not take the dogmatic approach of vetoing everything, as the Conservative Government did.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Tyrie rose—
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn rose—
Mr. Byers: I must make some progress, because I have probably taken longer than most hon. Members would wish me to so far.
Britain is not alone among member states in insisting that direct taxation is a matter for the national state. There is no proposal—nor any prospect of one—for the harmonisation of income tax in the European Union. No member state believes that there is a case for a European rate of corporation tax. Even the President of the Commission has said that
"income tax and corporation tax are sovereign national matters and will remain so."
The right hon. Member for Horsham, and the motion before us, raise the issue of the code of conduct group. I shall take this opportunity to inform the House of some facts, so that we do not allow prejudice to get in the way. The formation of such a group was first discussed during the United Kingdom presidency in November 1992. The group does not deal with tax harmonisation. It considers those measures that may be discriminatory and create harmful tax practices.
Five measures in the United Kingdom tax system are on the list to be considered by the code of conduct group. Five other measures relate specifically to Gibraltar. The fact that a measure is discussed by the group does not
396
necessarily mean that it thinks that they are harmful, or that any pressure will be put on the United Kingdom to change them. The United Kingdom will submit a robust defence of the five measures that the group will discuss, and we are confident that they do not constitute harmful tax practices. We are able to submit a robust defence because of the criteria to be applied.
A potentially harmful measure is one where the effective level of taxation is lower than the general level of taxation in the member states in question. For a measure to be harmful, it also has significantly to affect the location of business activity in the Community. For example, it can be argued that a measure confined to small businesses is not harmful.
Measures are to be scrutinised against the following five further criteria; whether the measure is directed only at non-resident companies; whether it is ring-fenced from the domestic market; whether there is no real economic activity associated with it; whether the rules for the determination of profits are consistent with those of the OECD; and whether the measure is transparent.
As for the more general work of the code of conduct group, we have made it clear that we support fair tax competition and will not agree to any measures that will harm United Kingdom businesses and jobs. However, we believe that it is right to take action to tackle harmful tax practices, and that is what we intend to do.
As I said earlier, the Government believe that our approach to Europe should be based on common sense, putting reason before dogma. The test has to be whether proposals deliver economic or financial benefits to the United Kingdom. That is the Labour Government's principled position on Europe, which puts the national interest first, and it is worth contrasting that with the Conservative party's position. It has ruled out membership of monetary union for 10 years. Even if it were to be in Britain's national economic interest to join before then, it would not matter because joining has been ruled out for at least 10 years.
I remind the House of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Horsham when he was interviewed by The Observer. He was asked whether what he was saying was that, even if the single currency were a success, he could not use that to decide whether or not to join. The right hon. Gentleman replied, "Absolutely." That is another example of personal political positioning.
The events of the past few weeks have revealed the modern Tory party as anti-Europe, backward looking and with no vision of the future that lies ahead for our country. A serious debate is under way in Europe about its direction. This Government's modernisation and reform agenda applies not only to the United Kingdom but to Europe. The Tories failed in Europe because they stood on the sidelines and resorted to foghorn diplomacy. We will engage our European partners, shape the debate and ensure throughout that we act in our national interest. The reforms necessary in Europe are not in conflict with our national interest and, indeed, the two often complement each other. That is the way forward, that will be our course of action, and I commend the amendment to the House.
8.18 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I extend the condolences of my hon. Friends and myself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the loss of his father, who

397
was a constituent of mine. I am sure that the Chancellor is in the village of Insch with his mother and brothers, and our thoughts are with them. Mr. Brown senior was a well-known, well-liked and well-respected figure in the community and he will be missed.
When I read the Conservative motion, I thought that it was sensible, but I am concerned by the way in which the argument has stacked up, which reveals two things. First, the Conservatives in government understood the practicalities of trying to secure co-operation on tax matters by voluntary agreement, but in opposition they have sought to turn that constructive approach into an anti-European rant. They are deliberately and mischievously failing to distinguish between voluntary co-operation for tax co-ordination—good—and the imposition of harmonised tax rates against our will—bad. Those are two quite different propositions. Yet Conservatives deliberately blur and mix them, so that people are not quite sure what is being addressed. Ultimately, it is not possible to support the motion because of the spirit behind it.
Liberal Democrats strongly believe that taxation is, and should remain, a national matter, and that we should be prepared to use our veto in the national interest. At the same time, if we can co-ordinate tax matters better with our European partners by agreement, that is all to the good. In doing so, we may be able to advance our national interest.
Why should we co-operate? On environmental issues, environmental taxes may well be more effective if they are agreed on a European basis. If we can plug tax loopholes—many of which are cynically exploited by financial institutions and accountants, many of whom are in the Conservative party—and argue for fairer duty levels on things such as our home-produced whisky, which suffers discrimination in some areas, that would be to our advantage, too. It is silly of the Tories to imply that such issues are neither to be looked at nor discussed.
Mr. Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman raises the important matter of environmental taxes. As Liberal Democrats are in favour of £29 billion worth of new environmental taxes, will he take this opportunity to spell out to the British public what they are?
Mr. Bruce: I am not prepared to answer that question. If Labour Members intend to intervene with lists of questions, they had better get the brief right. This matter pops up in every debate. We shall continue to send hon. Members copies of our document. If they read it, they will stop asking silly questions.
We have some concerns about the issue that is currently being debated throughout Europe. We are in favour of co-operation but we oppose harmonisation. The Government must make the distinction clear. We should be seeking to build a liberal Europe. That is a good word. Such a Europe would not have unnecessary centralisation on these issues.
We certainly do not want a socialist Europe full of conformity, control and centralisation. Therefore, tax competition is the right discipline because it will limit tax variation of its own accord. It will ensure that European tax levels, although variable throughout the EU, will take full account, and will have to take full account, of competitive pressures in the wider world—a point which, to be fair, was clearly acknowledged by the Chief Secretary.
398
I am confused by the Government's position on duty-free goods. A leading article in the Financial Times today argued that there was a smack of cynicism and opportunism in the Government's about-face on the issue. Duty-free goods must ultimately go. They cannot be justified on economic grounds. They undermine many small businesses in Britain and erode our tax base, as many will testify.
The real question is whether it is wise of the Government to express what I would suggest is synthetic opposition to getting rid of duty-free goods when the issue has already been dealt with and when there is unlikely to be a fundamental change of conclusion. The Government's position is unclear and inconsistent.
The third issue raised by the Opposition motion is what constitutes harmful tax competition. If we are talking about back-door subsidies of one kind or another, there can be a genuine debate about whether such subsidies should be eliminated by agreement, or whether each nation should be left to decide whether a subsidy is of benefit. That certainly should not be imposed on us. There are not more subsidies because, in a single competitive market, each nation ultimately has to determine that, in the long term, they are not in their economic interests.
There are those in the Irish Republic who are not entirely convinced that low corporation taxes have brought all the benefits that, on the face of it, appear to have been attracted. Businesses have located in Ireland to take advantage of the low tax rates, but they have repatriated the money. Ireland's GDP has been inflated to a level whereby it does not qualify for the cohesion funds which have been so important to the Irish economy. Most Irish citizens are not aware of the trickle-down effect of this wealth because it is not trickling down to the citizens. The Irish may want to reflect on whether that policy is in their long-term interests. We should allow market discipline and co-operation to be the way in which such anomalies are addressed, not central diktat.
We must be careful how we proceed because there may be measures which, for example, could help to promote employment in areas of high unemployment. They may be targeted and time limited to be of benefit, and it would be foolish to put ourselves in a situation where we never can agree measures to deal with special problems in special circumstances. Therefore, I urge the Financial Secretary not to give up tax breaks unless there is a clear case for doing so. I hope that when she replies she will make it clear that that would be her position.
In addition, when the Financial Secretary replies, some of us would like to know exactly where we are with tax relief on dividends for non-tax paying pensioners. That matter was on the Paymaster General's desk. He gave an undertaking to the House that it would be dealt with, but we now understand that it is on the Financial Secretary's desk. We would like to know whether she will deal with it and when she will make an announcement, preferably before the measure comes into effect.
My fourth point relates to the single currency. Today, the Prime Minister claimed to be engaging with Europe in order to promote our interests. That has been echoed by the Chief Secretary. The truth is that the decision to stay out of the single currency could make it more difficult in future for us to shape the European agenda and to serve our and other members' interests on tax policy

399
and budgetary issues. That could be a real problem to which the Government to date seem not to have an answer.
The Chief Secretary made a powerful statement to the effect that we will engage in Europe, argue our case and present a robust argument in favour of the British national interest. Unfortunately, there will be no British representative in the decision-making body of the European central bank. There will be no British representative in the Euro X committee of financial Ministers for the co-ordination of economic policy. Empty chairs cannot negotiate, and that is a danger which the Government have not addressed.
My final point relates to the specific working of the single currency in the context of this debate. It is our absolute belief that a single currency will work effectively only if there is sufficient fiscal flexibility and subsidiarity. The argument being put forward by, for example, Oskar Lafontaine, that a single currency requires the co-ordination of taxation, is 180 degrees wrong. A single currency requires member states to be able to adjust their tax policy to take account of differentials within those member states. With a common exchange and a common interest rate, that flexibility must be maintained.
My challenge to the Government is to be clear about that and to enable us to give a lead. As the Chief Secretary said, there is no unanimity on this—indeed, there is barely a majority—and countries such as Spain, Sweden, Denmark and Italy are anxious to have Britain inside the euro single currency arguing that case robustly and ensuring, at the end of the day, that, although Germany may be the biggest member of the EU, it cannot impose tax uniformity, however much its Finance Minister wishes to do so, against the wishes of the majority or against the wishes of any one member determined to argue the case.
Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman agrees that fiscal policy will be needed to offset inappropriate monetary policy within a single currency. Will he confirm that, in Britain, current research shows that a change in fiscal policy will be required of the order of a 5p increase in taxation, or up to £10 billion taken out in taxation from the economy?
Mr. Bruce: That is arrant nonsense. The whole point about fiscal flexibility is that we can make our own decisions. We need to pursue an economic policy to ensure co-ordination and convergence, something that my party has consistently argued, but it is absolute nonsense to say that anybody can require us to alter our tax regime against our wishes and regardless of our own interest.
The Germans in particular are concerned that we have a flexible economy and a low-tax base, and that that affects our competitiveness to their disadvantage. They have problems, but the message to Mr. Lafontaine is, "Don't expect Europe to solve Germany's problems." Let Germany solve its own problems and recognise that tax policy should remain completely a matter for national interests and national Governments.
Once that is established, it may be possible to co-ordinate the policies that are necessary to enable this country to join the single currency early rather than late, and not to be in the absurd position of the Conservative
400
party, which will not join even if it is in the national interest to do so. Indeed, the Conservative party has put itself increasingly in a situation in which even our continued membership of the European Union would be in question if we had no intention of joining at any time in the foreseeable future.
We must be upfront as a United Kingdom clearly pursuing a liberal agenda for Europe and rejecting the notion of a socialist Europe with controls, centralisation and diktat. I suspect that the Chancellor has reason to regret the fact that the document that flew around the socialist circles of Europe was initiated in his office. It is not surprising that he has tried to distance himself from it. I say to him and his team, "Don't apologise. Distance yourselves from it, strike the right balance and recognise that Britain can win this intellectual argument—if only the Government engage in it robustly enough."
8.32 pm
Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, because in the past two or three weeks we have lived through one of the most hysterical periods in respect of tax harmonisation that this country has experienced for an awfully long time. To get an impression of how far we are from the reality of the European debate, it is instructive to look at newspapers from France and Germany. They have been focusing not on tax harmonisation, but on splits and debates in the Franco-German alliance in a way wholly unrelated to the discussion in this country.
There has been the kind of relentless press campaign that this country has not seen for a long time, with complete and utter fabrications about tax harmonisation. One day last week, The Sun even led its front page with the bold statement that zero-rating of value added tax on children's clothes and on food would go if Britain joined the single currency. There is no such proposal. We have to ask those newspapers, and Conservative politicians who support that disingenuous campaign, why they are doing that and why they are so intent on using extreme exaggeration that is not justified in any basis of fact to put their arguments.
We need to be clear about why the Conservative party has initiated tonight's debate. In trying to get the discussion about tax harmonisation and tax issues going, it hopes that the electorate will forget its record on taxation in government. The charges for its period in office are clear. First, the burden of taxation was shifted in an unfair direction. The only people who were paying less tax at the end of 18 years of Conservative government than they were in 1979 were those earning more than £70,000 a year, and only because everyone else was paying more.
Secondly, the Conservatives in government did something in respect of VAT that they said categorically in opposition that they would not do. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that on many tax issues, and especially on the issue of tax harmonisation, they attempt to muddy the waters and pretend, "Yes, we were dishonest and misled you, but isn't that what all politicians are like and isn't that what is likely to come through the back door via Europe?"
Let us deal with the substance of the allegations about tax harmonisation and look at the facts. Nothing in the Maastricht treaty or the essence of the single currency

401
means that we have to have tax rates set in Brussels or harmonised taxation rates. The key reference in the Maastricht treaty is to sensible budget deficits—no more than 3 per cent. of gross domestic product. That leaves any democratically elected Government the option of a deficit that is either high tax, high spend and sensible or low tax and low spend. To pretend otherwise is simply not justifiable.
In general, when the European Union talks of tax harmonisation—there is a problem of language and translation—it is not talking about harmonising tax rates. It is talking about eliminating special tax breaks, which distort the market, and it is right to do so. In Britain, we should have no problem with that. Britain has a lot to gain from the elimination of tax breaks that provide unfair advantage to the industries of other countries, and of distortions in the single market.
On many occasions, we have heard Euro-sceptic Conservative Members rightly criticise what they perceive to be unfair state subsidies in other EU countries. A mechanism to tackle that should be supported.
Mr. Bercow: Given that the word "co-ordinate" is defined as
"to place or class in the same order, rank, or division",
at page 898 of the "Oxford English Dictionary", how is it to be distinguished in meaning from the word "harmonise"?
Mr. Rammell: I have not referred to page 898 as closely as has the hon. Gentleman. I would ask him to give the House a justification that takes his case forward and makes clear how any of the proposals on the table will take away the right of the British Government to set our tax rates. Nothing in the debate enables him to make that case.
I go further on the European situation: there are no European Union provisions for harmonisation of income tax rates, and no one has suggested that we should have that. There is no EU proposal to harmonise corporation tax rates. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will refer to Oskar Lafontaine. The most interesting revelation of the past few days is that his views do not even appear to be those of the German Government, let alone views that will win support across the EU.
The press has commented particularly on talk about the co-ordination and harmonisation of VAT rates. There have been co-ordinated VAT rates in this country and in Europe since 1977—more than 21 years. The idea that this is some new-fangled European wheeze to take away the powers for us to set our VAT rates simply does not bear any form of scrutiny.
The biggest single measure of tax harmonisation throughout Europe was introduced in 1991, as a result of the Conservative Government's decision to agree to a standard rate of VAT of 15 per cent. It was also agreed that, once introduced, that rate could not be reduced to less than 5 per cent. When the Labour Government came to power and wanted to reduce VAT on fuel, they could reduce it only to 5 per cent. and not to zero because of that tax-harmonising decision made by the Conservative Government. The Conservative party in government had already sold the pass.
There has been much misinformation about the withholding tax, the aim of which is to prevent tax evasion. The Government are rightly supporting that. The
402
withholding tax concerns only cross-border income from investments in one member state to those resident in another. It has no impact on domestic savings taxation, but one would not have known that from the comments of Conservative Members and the newspapers in the past few weeks.
It has been argued that, if we sign up to a single currency, we will automatically have to sign up to harmonised tax rates. That is not the position in the United States of America. It has a single currency, but the individual states have differing tax rates. That deals with that argument.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not use the veto on the withholding tax? If so, what does he believe the impact of the imposition of the tax would be on the bond market in London?
Mr. Rammell: I support the Government's position. There is concern about the euro bond market. If the withholding tax provision takes the form of an exchange of information, we can live with that. If it would damage the euro bond market, it would have to be agreed by unanimity and the veto would be available to us. I shall deal with the arguments about the manner and circumstances in which we use the veto, because that is pertinent to the discussion.
We should bear in mind the fact that the majority of Governments of the European Union, the European Central bank and the European Commission take the view that fair tax competition is a good thing. From the comments of Conservative Members and newspaper articles in the past few weeks, one does not get the impression that the majority view in the European Union is that fair tax competition is a good thing, and that taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product must be cut to make the EU more competitive. That is the stated aim of the ECB, and it is what the European Commission and the majority of elected Governments throughout the European Union are saying. They are hardly the views of a European Union that is about to harmonise our taxes and jack up our tax rates through some back-door mechanism.
It has also been argued—we heard the argument again this evening—that what the Government are saying is all very well, but we must listen to the detail and to what Oskar Lafontaine and this or that politician in Europe are saying. We should treat such comments with caution. Even within one Government and in one nation state there will always be a difference of views. Proposals will be talked up but will go nowhere, and kites will be flown that do not stay up.
The European Union has 15 different elected Governments, a Commission, a Central bank and a Parliament, so different proposals will be made and different views will be expressed. Just because ideas have been floated does not mean that there will be a change of policy. Over the years, the European Council table in Brussels has been littered with tax proposals that have died the death, such as the carbon tax proposals and the proposals for VAT on passenger transport, which were withdrawn in 1996.
It is not grown up or sensible government and politics to pretend that certain discussions will never take place or that no views will ever be expressed with which we are

403
not comfortable. We should have a grown-up and mature debate on those issues, not the hysteria that we have seen in recent weeks every time such a suggestion has been made.
An article in the Financial Times this morning hit the nail on the head. It said:
"Tax issues are portrayed in black and white. In reality, governments opposed to one proposal often agree on other matters and there are inconsistencies within member states, notably in Germany."
That is the reality of the situation, and it should be brought out in the debate.
We are trying to refute the propaganda onslaught from the Conservative party about there being a major campaign to harmonise taxes, but people need not listen to Labour Members or to the Government. Conservative Members in particular should note what the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said last week. Commenting on tax harmonisation, he said that the United Kingdom
"could well benefit from changes … I always vetoed the savings tax which the Germans were very keen on … Gordon Brown sounded exactly like I did when I rejected scare stories about tax harmonisation".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail had gone over the top on the basis of
"foolish remarks by Oskar Lafontaine."
That is what a senior and respected Conservative politician—a former Chancellor of the Exchequer—is saying. It would be helpful to hear from the Opposition spokesman who will wind up the debate whether the Conservative party considers that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was being naive, whether he was making a deliberate attempt to mislead, or whether he was talking decent common sense and trying to bring people back to the facts.
There will always be a debate in Europe—in the European Union—about the way in which we wish to go forward, about the nature of the single currency, about whether we should join and about when we should join; but we should engage in that debate in a constructive, mature, reflective way. That is simply not happening at present. I believe that the country's only chance of economic success in the future lies in its being part of the European Union. We must seize the opportunities that exist, we must engage constructively in debate, and we must work together. There are circumstances in which we can achieve more together than we can alone: we should reject the isolationism—the retreat into the past, and into unreality—proposed by the Opposition.
We will preserve the country's economic interest. We must secure the best for Britain, but that will mean working with our partners in the European Union, rather than constantly rubbishing and rejecting them as Opposition Members do.
8.47 pm
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) said that a debate was going on in Europe. At the end of his speech, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury also referred to a debate in Europe—a debate about the shape of the Europe in which we want to live in future.
404
My right hon. and hon. Friends were right to table the motion. The Government must be much clearer—much straighter with the House, and with the British people—about where they stand in that debate about the future shape of the continent. The truth is that they are trying to have it both ways. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has signed up to the "New European Way" document, about which I shall have more to say shortly. While trying to cuddle up to the Party of European Socialists on the continent, the Government are also seeking to retain the endorsement of the Daily Mail.
It is not surprising that, when Ministers are speaking on the one hand to Mr. Lafontaine and Mr. Jospin and on the other hand to Mr. Dacre, they find that they have no words to cover the case; but the fudge that the Government are using to deal with the two audiences that they seek to satisfy is wearing thin. It is not a question of Europe, in or out; it is not a question whether we should engage in the argument on the continent about the future shape of Europe.
The Prime Minister was right this afternoon to stress the importance of Britain's engaging in the argument about the future shape of Europe, because our essential national interests are tied up in the conclusion that is reached in that debate. In truth, the debate is much more uncomfortable for the Prime Minister and for new Labour, because it is about Europe left or right, not Europe right or wrong.
One cannot help feeling a sneaking sympathy for the Prime Minister, in a sense. From his point of view, it is rotten luck that he should have spent so many years and so much effort in an attempt to suppress the voice of the old left in his party. He has seen off the old high-spend, high-tax forces in his party, and consigned them, more or less, to silent oblivion; then up pops the Party of European Socialists, reviving all the ideas that he thought that he had quelled in his own party.
It is not surprising that Ministers feel a certain embarrassment. Just at the moment when they thought that they had put all that to bed, suddenly the people on the continent whom they had been proud to regard as their friends—the new European left—start sending back across the channel all the arguments that are so inconvenient within the domestic argument for new Labour and the Labour party.
In an intervention, I quizzed the Chief Secretary on "The New European Way." I did not rely on selected excerpts. I enjoyed reading the document from beginning to end. I emphasise the point. My quarrel is not, by and large, with the European Commission. It is with the Party of European Socialists, and the vision of the future that is set out in the document.
I enjoyed reading "The New European Way" from beginning to end. It was a bit like a trip down memory lane. I quote one or two excerpts to which the Chief Secretary might not have had his attention drawn by the Conservative research department, because it draws some of the colour of the document:
"For the European Socialists and Social Democrats, pursuing macroeconomic policies in the interest of Europe's citizens has several aspects".
It then makes several unexceptional comments, until it comes to this masterpiece of an art that I thought was dead—the art of drawing up a composite motion. It says

405
that, for the European Socialists—how the Prime Minister must have hated association with that word "socialists"—one of those aspects is
"a commitment to an increase of disposable incomes"—
the next bit was inserted presumably by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Mr. Ed Balls—
"that is compatible with price stability"—
end of insert—
"so as to stabilise consumer expectations and macroeconomic demand, given an EU-import and export GDP share of only around 8 per cent."
The last bit, I suspect, was composited by the Greeks, but the key burden of that passage is that here is the voice, which has been given crisper and more grammatical form by Mr. Lafontaine, of people on the continent who still believe that it is important to maintain total aggregate demand as the key to delivering stable planning of the economy.
Those are the arguments of 25 years ago, and they are in the document that was signed by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer—small wonder that Ministers find themselves uncomfortable when asked whether he signed the document in a fit of absence of mind.
In particular, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, who is known to hate that word "socialist", are embarrassed by the fact that they are associated with the document, but some people on the continent have made that case in the Party of European Socialists for a clear reason. Mr. Lafontaine is not embarrassed by the use of the word "socialist", and he is certainly not embarrassed by association with some of those ideas, because behind those commitments is a clear agenda.
Despite what the Chief Secretary says about his commitment to tax competition, the agenda is to reduce tax competition to make it easier to raise taxes and to go back to high-tax, high-spend policies. That is why "The New European Way" is dangerous, and why the Government, if they want to be taken seriously when they say that they are in favour of tax competition and divorced from the old ways of 20 years ago, should not have signed the document, but should, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said, take the opportunity to distance themselves, as a Government and as a party, from ideas that the Prime Minister would prefer us to believe had been left behind long ago by the British Labour party. That is why I believe that hon. Members and those who follow these affairs outside the House are entitled to know whether the Government are for or against the ideas in the document. Do the Prime Minister and the Chancellor agree with the ideas that are set out by the European Socialists, or do they want us to believe that, although they have signed its document, they prefer the policies of the European centre right?
The Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) were right. A debate is going on, and there is a choice to be made between the route of the Party of European Socialists and that of the European centre right. Indeed, that alternative view of the way forward—the ideas of the European centre right—is a much more attractive view for Europe as a whole, and for Britain as part of Europe.
I do not agree with Mr. Lafontaine that a single currency leads inevitably to a single tax-and-spend policy, and I do not understand why the fact that he associates
406
himself with that view should make it attractive elsewhere in this country. Furthermore, not only do I advance that point of view, but I remind the House that the separation between the single currency and tax-and-spend policy is not merely an expression of a point of view; it is set out in the Maastricht treaty, which separates fiscal from monetary policy, and establishes a separate line of responsibility for each.
That is one aspect of the programme of the European centre right which the Prime Minister has to decide whether he favours or is against; tax competition is the second aspect. The Chief Secretary said at the Dispatch Box that he was in favour, and I am delighted to hear it. However, "The New European Way" makes it abundantly plain that the European left is not in favour. Ironically, the argument for tax competition is clearly set out in the document, but it is applied not to Governments but to the private sector.
On competition as a policy for the private sector, the document states:
"With a single currency greater price transparency will increase the scope for cross-border competition. It will make it easier for consumers to compare prices and shop around. Firms will come under pressure to compete on quality, value for money and innovation. Firms will tend to avoid increased competition by price cartels or mergers.
That is why we need policies that offer fair competition in product markets through attacking cartels, monopolies and vested interests."
I completely agree. However, I do not agree with the distinction that the document draws between the argument for competition that the European Socialists think should apply to the private sector and that for protection against competition, which they think should apply to the public sector.
On tax harmonisation in the public sector—it is striking that the authors recognise that economic and monetary union will increase the pressure of competition—the document states:
"Economic and monetary union will intensify the potential for tax competition. Therefore,"—
in other words, because of that increased tax competition—
"further efforts will have to be undertaken to avoid harmful tax competition among the member states."
I wholly disagree with that proposition. The Chief Secretary sought to persuade us that he disagreed, too, but the choice is there. Either the Government follow the document produced by the European Socialists, or they follow the doctrine of the European centre right, which is in favour of tax competition as an essential discipline on Governments for the same reasons that it is an essential discipline on the private sector.
It is not part of my view that sensible technical co-ordination of tax policy has no place. It would be absurd for me to argue that. I was a Treasury Minister, and I followed my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), as Financial Secretary. As Ministers, both he and I were responsible for a succession of minor technical alignments of tax policy.
One is on the table from the Commission at the moment—the taxation of interest and royalty payments between associated companies. Ironically, it builds directly on an earlier directive on the taxation of such payments on wholly owned subsidiaries, which was

407
passed under the previous Government. That is an example of a dry form of tax policy that offers an opportunity for sensible co-ordination.
I am not against that, but I strongly favour a tilt of policy throughout Europe in favour of tax competition between countries, for exactly the same reasons that I am in favour of private sector companies competing with one another. That sort of competition—by a comparison between the performances of individual Governments throughout Europe—is one of the best guarantees that can be provided that Governments will deliver good-value services.
It is right in principle for tax policy to be the responsibility of directly elected national Parliaments. The responsibility of the member state in Europe for tax policy is not merely an expression of view: it is there in the treaties, and to change it, the Party of European Socialists would need not only to change the balance of power in the Council of Ministers but to deliver a treaty amendment.
When we are faced with the document, bearing the Chancellor's signature, the central question, which only the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Government can answer, is: which side are the Government on? Are they on the side of the Party of European Socialists, with Mr. Lafontaine and Mr. Jospin, in favour of a cartel of socialists protecting high taxes; or on the side of the centre right, with a commitment to an open, competitive marketplace as the best discipline on Governments, for the same reason that it is the best discipline on companies?
9.1 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: We are all aware that the Tory party is against further European integration, but it was not until this evening that it became clear to me how far it had moved. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who was on the extreme Euro-sceptic wing in the previous Parliament, must be bewildered at the speed at which the rest of his party has caught up with him.
Every disagreement, every remark by a Minister from another European country, regardless of whether the Government agree with it, and every rumour that appears in the press, is used to further the Tory agenda. The Tories make no attempt to make a sensible argument against European integration, but merely use crude scare tactics to try to convince the British people that they will suffer catastrophic tax rises if we continue to talk to our European partners. Their whole agenda is obviously nonsense, and I do not believe that the British people will be taken in.
Our debate this evening is not about what is best for the United Kingdom, the British people or British business: it is simply about the dreadful state of the Tory party. That party is utterly demoralised by its disintegration in the House of Lords, and dismayed by the abysmal performance of its leader in the House of Commons, and it does not have the faintest idea how to be an effective Opposition.
I confess myself amazed that the Tory party would dare to raise the subject of tax, in the light of the previous Government's 22 tax rises, the abortive attempt to impose
408
17.5 per cent. VAT on fuel, and all the broken promises. It appears to think that the people of this country have extremely short memories.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Campbell: No, because I have only a short time, and others want to speak. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will get an opportunity to speak if he catches the Deputy Speaker's eye.
Time and again, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the previous Prime Minister, told the electorate that tax would be cut, but the reality was that the Tories did the very opposite of what they had promised: they increased taxes. The 22 new Tory taxes cost a typical family more than £2,000 extra. As if that were not enough, just before the 1992 general election, on 17 March, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"we have no need and no plans to extend the scope of VAT."
Earlier that year, he promised that there would be no VAT increase.
That seemed clear. Many people were taken in by the promise from what appeared to be Honest John, but the Tories imposed VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. A massive popular campaign helped the then Labour Opposition to defeat that unfair tax. It would have hit hardest those on low incomes and elderly people, who need to keep their homes warm.
How can anyone ever trust the Conservative party again? The party that keeps its promises is the Labour party, and I am proud to belong to a party which has kept its promises on tax—
Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I hope that it is a point of order. Many hon. Members will not be called for this debate.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the hon. Lady's comments germane to a debate about tax harmonisation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I knew that it was not a point of order.
Mrs. Campbell: I know that the Opposition do not like to hear what I am saying, but it is extremely important that we continue to remind the electorate of the promises that were made and not kept.
The new Labour Government have cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. They have not raised the basic or top rates of income tax. They have not extended VAT to food, children's clothing, books, newspapers or public transport fares. I know that the Government will continue to keep their promises on tax.
The Conservative party is using scare tactics again when it pretends that the Government will give up their veto on matters of taxation. In 1997, the Labour party manifesto made it clear that we would retain the national

409
veto over key matters of national interest such as taxation. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has explained clearly that tax proposals require unanimity.
If the rules of the EU were to be changed so that tax proposals were no longer subject to a unanimous vote, that in itself would require a treaty change, and a treaty change cannot be achieved unless everyone agrees. The Government have made it clear that they will not agree, and there is no heart in the great majority of other European countries for change, either. So it simply will not happen. The Conservative Opposition are simply trying to create a crisis out of thin air.
The attitude of the Opposition on European issues shows that their election defeat in 1997 taught them nothing. Their approach of non-co-operation and non-negotiation was supposed to bring an early end to the beef ban. The previous Prime Minister remarked that the ban would be lifted by November. He certainly did not mean this November. He meant November two or even three years ago, when he was still in government.
The Conservative Government's attitude then was that, by bullying and not speaking to our European counterparts, and by refusing to address the arguments, they would win the day. In the event, the Europeans went ahead, and made policy without us. We were always on the outside, until the Labour Government came to power and showed what could be achieved with constructive dialogue and co-operation. That has always been the way to achieve results, and the Government have proved that it works.
The previous shadow Chancellor appeared to believe that entry into the single currency would require centralisation of tax and borrowing powers. He made that point in reply to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, when my right hon. Friend explained the Government's policy to the House on 27 October 1997. The previous shadow Chancellor's view is mistaken, as is that of the present shadow Chancellor. It is easily seen to be a false proposition from the example of the United States, a country that has a single currency but different tax rates in different states. Tax harmonisation is not an inevitable consequence of a single currency.
I am not sure why we are debating this issue tonight. Tax harmonisation is never going to happen in Europe, so there seems little point in spending time and energy debating the issue. The important things to British people are jobs, high living standards and markets that are truly open and in which our businesses can compete.
On Monday morning, I was fortunate to attend one of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's productivity roadshows, that held in the eastern region which was one of several roadshows that my right hon. Friend and his Ministers are holding around the country. I did not see any Opposition Members at the roadshow but the business people who were present warmly welcomed the Government's approach to productivity. They appreciate the reduction in corporation tax to its lowest-ever level, and the tax measures that have been proposed to encourage long-term investment and reward entrepreneurs. The huge increase in the science budget has come as a welcome surprise to research organisations and small firms. They all want the unique blend of low taxation and increased investment that the Government have put in place.
410
I do not believe that the people will be fooled or scared by Tory stories on tax. The Labour Government are earning people's respect and trust, whereas the Conservative party will never again be trusted on tax.
9.10 pm
Sir Peter Lloyd: Before I embark on my speech, I join other hon. Members in expressing my sympathy to the Chancellor on the loss of his father.
Although I am tempted to do so, I shall not follow up the rather individual interpretation of recent history presented by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), other than to comment on her reference to the beef ban being lifted by new Labour. In fact, it was finally lifted under the Labour Government because they had continued the measures that were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. The Labour Government deserve some praise for sustaining the effort, but to pretend that the measures belong to them is to rewrite history.
Despite the protests of hon. Members, it is plain that the Government are in a quandary over Europe and tax—it is plain from the exchanges at Prime Minister's questions and from the Chief Secretary's speech this afternoon. I shall not dwell on the quotations, because I intend to speak only briefly, so as to allow others to speak and because the quotations have been bandied about often enough today and on previous occasions.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), I can sympathise with the Government. They want to be at the heart of Europe; they want to engage positively; and they want to appear to the public to be doughty defenders of British interests—defenders who will not let taxes be pushed up by Brussels, and who will retain at Westminster all the power necessary to ensure that they can prevent it.
At the start, it is quite easy for the Government to square all that rhetorically—at least, it would be, if leading European figures refrained from speaking and spoiling the effect—by saying, "We shall co-ordinate our tax systems and co-operate in removing harmful tax competition, but, rely on us, we shall use our veto to protect British interests." However, when it comes to it, the practice will be far more difficult in the continuous horse trading that is how the European Union does business.
The Government will find that, in Europe, not only is it not possible to please everyone, but that it is all too easy to please no one at all. Trying to earn plaudits in Europe and at home will ensure that the Government become distrusted and derided at both ends. That was a lesson that the previous Government learned to their cost, and so will the present Government. I suspect that the Government will pay a high political price, but I fear that the British people will pay a higher economic and constitutional price, unless the Government listen to the Opposition.
It is theoretically possible to have a single currency without tax harmonisation, but I do not believe that that is what will happen in the EU. The very demands of launching the euro and the transparency it brings will put increasing strain on the different tax regimes of member countries. Each country's regime will have at least one feature that the others find objectionable. It is only to be expected that European politicians and officials—not least

411
the German and French Finance Ministers, who are not inconsiderable people—who want an ever-closer union will perceive an overriding need for tax matters to be settled by majority voting.
That will fit in with their ideals, and with the practical problems that they believe must be resolved. The only surprise is that it has been mentioned so soon: they clearly have the bit between their teeth. If the Government apply for United Kingdom entry into the single currency, they may be sure that they will have to accept majority voting on this matter—that is, if they have not already conceded it by then.
There is another reason to expect Europe to move in that direction. It will be the only way that it can conceive of getting rid of harmful tax competition, which features far more in the mind of Europe than in that of the Government. The problem is that one country's benevolent, business-encouraging, job-creating tax arrangement is another country's imported unemployment—or, in other words, another country's harmful tax competition.
I do not believe that the rest of Europe will raise duties on wine and cigarettes to British levels in order to halt the United Kingdom's loss of trade and revenue to northern France. However, we will certainly be expected to begin to raise taxes on business and employment closer to European levels.
We can also be assured that those levels will not come down in the foreseeable future. The new Government in Germany are acting like old Labour, increasing public spending to fund job creation measures. I am not arguing the merits or otherwise of that approach; I am merely emphasising the fact that harmonising taxes will inevitably lead to rising taxes in the United Kingdom.
The most harmful and unjust tax arrangement from the point of view of other European financial centres is that which is vital to the success of the City of London. It is not surprising that they regard the withholding tax as a simple and fair Community arrangement. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, the tax will ensure not a more equitable sharing of financial business across the Community but the migration of that business to New York, Zurich and elsewhere beyond Europe's borders. The business will be lost to London and to Europe.
Opposition to tax harmonisation is in Britain's, as well as Europe's, best interests. Europe needs to become more competitive, particularly in light of the fall in the value of Asian currencies. If that is to happen, Europe must have effective internal competition. The single currency is supposed to promote that. However, if the EU is to be genuinely competitive, it will need competing tax regimes. If one EU tax regime is more successful in encouraging business and jobs, it should be copied voluntarily, because it works, rather than legislated out of existence as a threat or an anomaly.
The Chief Secretary recognised that argument in part of his speech. He accepted that international competition and its needs will shape the tax systems of countries across the world, but he failed to draw the appropriate conclusions. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)— I hope that I followed him correctly—drew the same conclusion, and rightly challenged the Government to say where they stand on that issue.
412
The Opposition are concerned not about tax harmonisation that arises naturally and properly because certain tax measures are shown to be more efficient and effective in developing economies, but about enforced tax harmonisation. That should be resisted by the Government, and I hope that, in winding up, the Minister will confirm that that is their intention. Enforced tax harmonisation must be resisted, in the interests of Britain and of the wider Community.
9.19 pm
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Conservative Members have been skating on thin ice this evening, having called a debate about tax harmonisation, on which they face a dodgy dilemma. They are trying to throw accusations at the Government but they get very shaky and worried about Europe because it is the last subject that they want to discuss. Every Tory Member who has spoken this evening has given a slightly different version of how the future of Europe should develop. I hope that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will speak because I would like to hear his opinion.
Conservative Members are probably regretting the debate and thinking that it is a waste of an Opposition day. When the press was speculating last Wednesday that the Leader of the Opposition would raise the matter at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Tories made a big gaffe and he raised the issue of the House of Lords. Perhaps there is a greater need for harmonisation of Tory party efforts in the Commons and the Lords than there is for a debate on tax harmonisation.
The debate is a diversionary tactic to raise the spectre of Euro-federalism moving towards us and the evil arm of Europe reaching out to grab money from people's pockets. The Chief Secretary set out clearly Labour's policies and how the Government want tax policy to develop across Europe. We want to focus on reducing public sector borrowing levels and ensuring that there are no reckless spending plans, certainly in Britain. We want to ensure that there is wise, efficient prioritisation in public spending and that we take every opportunity to bear down on unnecessary tax and spending. We want to tax only to fund vital public services. That ethos needs to be spread across all European countries, and I am glad that the Government are leading the way in that.
Fairness in taxation has been mentioned by my hon. Friends. It is important that we focus on how the Government have led the way in Europe in showing that we can have fair taxation. The windfall levy on the privatised utilities is a clear example of redirecting money from areas that were not legitimate to spending that was vital for the nation's interests. The Government have been focusing on the national interest at all times.
Rewarding work and making work pay are fundamental aspects of the Government's tax strategy. I hope that they will lead the way in Europe also on the working families tax credit, which is just one example of the way in which the Government have demonstrated that the best option is to get people off benefit and into work. That is the context of the tax policy that we are discussing.
I was listening to the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), talking about harmonisation. It is a pity that he is not here now. I am dismayed that Conservative Members had the temerity to call this debate. I did some research. I took a leaf out of

413
the hon. Member for Stone's book and delved into the Maastricht treaty. Article 99 provides that the Council can, for the first time, legitimately discuss tax harmonisation measures such as turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation. Whose signature is at the bottom of the page? Why, it is that of the shadow Chancellor. I do not want to talk about facing both ways on this issue because it would probably be unparliamentary, but people must draw their own conclusions. As I said, I hope that the hon. Member for Stone will have an opportunity to speak.
We have been considering how the Tory party wants to scare people about taxation. It is no wonder that people are worried when newspapers build up those issues because the previous Government's record, which has already been set out, was one of making various promises before the election and breaking and discarding them afterwards. We have heard how VAT on fuel was one of the biggest betrayals by the previous Government. The Tory Government gave away our right to a zero rate of VAT on fuel. Conservative Members have the cheek to talk about tax harmonisation when they started the ball rolling. They are the ones who gave away our right to zero rate VAT on fuel. Some apologies are necessary, and a bit of contrition would not go amiss from the Opposition.
I am intrigued to note that there has been a reshuffle on the Conservative Front Bench. There has not been much news about the Tory Front Bench recently—I am not surprised about that—but the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) used to be the Tory spokesman on tax matters. He has disappeared and has been replaced by a Back Bencher. I was wondering why that was—
Mr. John Whittingdale: On a point of information, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) unfortunately suffered a severe accident in the summer and is incapacitated. We all hope that he will return to the Front Bench very soon.
Mr. Leslie: I am sorry to hear that but glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman will be returning. I mentioned him because I wanted to read out an interesting comment that he made. He said:
"I favour the complete abolition of income tax—a tax on earnings—and its substitution by a purchase tax—a tax on spending."—[Official Report, 25 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 840.]
The Tory party ought to think again before it starts delving into VAT—on fuel or anything else. Indeed, the Library tells me that if we took the hon. Gentleman's advice, VAT would be at 40 per cent.
If we want to consider tax policy across Europe, we should take the opportunity afforded by Opposition days to find out exactly where the Tory party stands. Of course, looking both ways has been a feature of Tory Members' contributions all evening, but how on earth would the Tories square their claim about supposedly wanting to move towards a fairer public finance system with the most ridiculous and contradictory positions that they adopted in debates on the Finance Bill? They were always calling for more public expenditure on defence and to fight crime, yet the amendments that they tabled called for an astronomical reduction of £6 billion in public services.
The Tories' priorities included, for example, the reopening of the loophole of the foreign earnings deduction, which would have cost £300 million. Also as
414
a priority they wanted to halve the rate of bingo duty, something that I look forward to reading in the next Tory manifesto. Another top priority was the abolition of capital gains tax, a commitment costing £1.3 billion. There is a black hole in their financial proposals, and they have no answers as to how they would fill it. Would they cut spending, increase the national debt or raise taxes? We know that their hidden agenda during the election was to put VAT on many items, and I suspect that we could find many more.
If we compare the performance of the Labour Government with that of the rabble who are the Opposition, it is clear that there is no contest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) rightly points out. In our manifesto, we promised not only that we would retain the national veto over key matters of national interest such as taxation—this debate is a waste of time because we keep our manifesto promises—but that we would not increase income tax. Despite the Tories' scaremongering before the election, we have kept, and will keep, our promises. That is the difference between the Government and that lot over there.
The Tory party makes policy on the hoof, not knowing where it is going, while the Labour Government stick to the pledges in their manifesto—for example, fair taxation at all times—while always looking to invest in vital public services.
9.29 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I shall be brief because I know that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) also wants to speak.
Although there has been much rather tiresome political banter, the day has been useful because both the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary have reiterated very forcefully and helpfully a complete commitment to the principle of tax competition. Moreover, they have made it clear that tax competition is not an obstacle to closer economic and, indeed, monetary union.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) helpfully mentioned the United States, which is much more highly integrated than Europe is—or, I suspect—will ever be because it is a political union. The United States has a great deal of tax diversity and tax competition. Indeed, it is mandated in the constitution. It is useful to reflect on how it manages the problems that are causing so much trouble for the European left.
There is much self-discipline on taxation. American states realise that there is no point in throwing vast amounts of public money in bribes to companies; it is self-defeating. The states therefore do not compete. There is no dive to the bottom in personal or business taxes in the United States. Moreover, there is a great deal of voluntary co-operation. There is something called a multi-state tax compact, in which American states that have problems co-operating simply negotiate bilateral agreements among themselves, thus dealing with many of the problems that are exercising Europe. That can take place in full monetary union. There is no reason why we in Europe should not follow that precedent.
I shall reiterate the two fundamental reasons why—even for my party, which is more unequivocally committed to the European Union than others—tax should remain a national responsibility. One is the principle of subsidiarity; that it is appropriate that the decision should

415
be taken at the lowest-possible level. Indeed, one should repeat the premise, for which Lady Thatcher should claim great credit, of establishing through the single market not merely closer union but the principle of competition among standards—the mutual recognition of different standards as a way of deepening the EU in international trade and investment. It is perfectly possible to have deeper union and competition of product standards, of wages and, indeed, of taxation.
The second basic principle is the acceptance that, if monetary policy is surrendered, national states must have greater freedom to vary taxes and public expenditure. The two things go in opposite directions, and that is how Europe must deal with them. At the same time, there is an argument for co-operation in certain areas. One of those is the problem area of corporation tax. It would be quite wrong for a company operating in several states deliberately to manipulate one Government against another. That would amount effectively to the confiscation of public revenue. That is not tolerated in the United States and should not be in Europe, either.
We should not forget that, although everybody seems to be operating on the assumption that we have a highly competitive corporation tax rate, the UK's rate is higher than in most parts of Europe once all the various allowances are added. The way to deal with corporation tax is to acknowledge the many very damaging and distorting state aids. The previous Government—as well as the present one—accepted that we must intervene to create a single market to co-ordinate policies on corporation tax and state aids.
The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) made a valuable point, although it was somewhat ideologically put. A genuine problem is arising in Europe as a result of the some of the demands of parts of the European left. I was alarmed to read in the paper this morning that the German socialist party is not only demanding tax harmonisation but opposing something that it calls "wage dumping". It seems to regard as wholly wrong in principle the fact that countries with different wage levels should compete. That is gross economic illiteracy. I hope that the Government—everything that they have said today on this subject is absolutely right—will show the same degree of courage in facing the loony left in Europe as they did toward their own party.
9.34 pm
Mr. William Cash: In the few minutes available, I shall address the reasons why tax co-ordination follows the Maastricht treaty, as it does in essence. The framework for co-ordination of economic policy is clearly laid down in articles 130, 103, 2, 2a, and so on, and title VII of the treaty lays down the parameters within which it is intended to go, which is why I opposed it so strongly. The statements of Oskar Lafontaine and Gerhard Schroder must be weighed against the remarks of Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, who has called for the decisive task of our time: the creation of a single state and an international entity in international law.
If one combines those two things, and throws in the costs that are inherent in the things that I shall now list, it becomes clear that not only will it be necessary to co-ordinate a tax policy, but it will be very expensive, and it will cost the British people an arm and a leg. I shall give the House the list.
416
First, pension liabilities. People will not be able to receive pensions unless the money is found from the other countries in the European Union. In the United Kingdom, we have about £820 billion of privately funded pensions. In Germany, the figure is about £250 billion. As one considers each country in turn, the relevant figure decreases. The money simply is not there. If those countries are to provide public pensions, under the "new way" arrangements, with all the socialism that is now coming in through the back door, they will have to raise massive amounts of tax.
Secondly, cohesion funds. There will be an attempt to create the convergence that does not exist at the moment; that will cost an enormous amount of money.
Thirdly, German and European unemployment is still running at massive levels. That unemployment must be funded.
Fourthly, the Germans want their money back, and if it is given back in the form of a rebate to Germany—which is what Germany is insisting on—inevitably, the burden will fall on other people. Germany is asking for as much as £6 billion.
Fifthly, there is the whole "new European way" and the Keynesian growth policies that go with it—back to the 1960s, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said.
Sixthly, there are German tax levels. The other day, Joseph Joffe, a columnist for Siiddeutsche Zeitung Magazin, said in the Sunday Telegraph that the reason that the Germans want to Germanise economic and monetary union is to raise the taxes of other countries to German levels, so that capital will not fly out of Germany into Holland and Britain, where taxes are low.
Then there are the issues of enlargement, the black economy and fraud.
When one combines all those factors and throws in the fact that our economic and political philosophy is completely different from that of other socialist policy makers in Europe, one appreciates that the question whether there will be tax harmonisation is not simply an invention—a fantasy. It is based on the Maastricht treaty, which creates co-ordination of economic policy making. Moreover, one has the drive of each of the instances that I have given, towards the necessity to raise the money if the member states are to achieve the policy of the single state that they are aiming at. It is all extremely simple.
There is one last factor—the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice is already effectively bypassing the rules that have been laid down, and which were mentioned by the Chief Secretary. According to Professor Franz Vanistendael of Leuven university,
"Increasingly the European Court of Justice is applying the non-discrimination principle, that has fully been accepted … in the area of indirect taxation, to the area of income tax."
The reality is that the Court is running a policy that will lead to harmonisation or co-ordination of taxes—I do not care which word is used. The fact is, it will come in unless it is stopped.
At Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday 2 December 1998, I asked the Prime Minister whether he "can and will" guarantee to veto all this; he did not answer. Nor did he answer when I asked him whether he was going to tell the truth to the British people in a White Paper. He cannot, because he dare not.
9.39 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale: This has been a short but important debate. It has also been a highly revealing one. The Government have been telling us for months that reports that Europe wanted to harmonise taxes were scaremongering. Only last week the Foreign Secretary talked about
"exploding myths and mischief that have been peddled as facts."
This evening the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) talked about an hysterical period and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) referred to very crude scare tactics. At the same time, however, other European Governments have made no secret of their wish to move towards a system of common European taxation. They see it as an integral part of economic and monetary union and they cannot understand why that has come as such a surprise.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) is absolutely right. It is theoretically possible to have a single currency without common taxation. However, that is not the intention of the European Union. Three years ago, the president of the Bundesbank said:
"A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policies as well as in monetary affairs. It is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy over taxation policies."
Since then, there has been a procession of Finance Ministers, central bankers, Commission officials and Heads of Government all reiterating the same message, so that barely a day passes without another European politician spelling it out. Not even the Government can maintain the pretence that this is not happening or that it is not a central priority for many other European states.
We were told, "Never mind, we have a veto. Any change to taxation can be done only on the basis of unanimity, and nobody wants to change that." A few days after that was said, the German Finance Minister announced that it was his view that we should have qualified majority voting on taxation and that the veto should be scrapped. We were told, "That does not matter because it is only a personal view." The Chief Secretary said just that in the debate which took place a week ago. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said that the idea was a non-starter, that it did not represent anyone's official policy and that it had
"a cat's chance in hell"
of being adopted.
Within a matter of hours the French Finance Minister said that he supported Mr. Lafontaine, while the German Chancellor said that it was the official policy of the German Government. The next day, the Finns said that extending majority voting to taxation would be high on the agenda of their presidency.
The Chief Secretary has told us this evening that that is not the view of the Finnish Finance Minister. The Finnish version of Alastair Campbell has said:
"Majority voting on taxation is not a question of if but when."
If the Finnish Government are anything like this Government, we know who is pulling the strings. So much for myths and mischief. What the Government said was irresponsible fantasy a few weeks ago is now, according to the Prime Minister, a debate in which we must be engaged.
418
The Government use tough language for domestic consumption. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is only too happy to bolster his macho image by talking about using the veto. Tax harmonisation, an end to zero rates of value added tax, a withholding tax and a cut in the British rebate—we are told that decisions on all those things can and will be vetoed. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said, the Government are trying to have it both ways because that is not what is being said on the continent. There, they are happy to sign up to greater co-ordination of taxes and an end to so-called harmful tax competition. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies, I hope she will try to square what the Government have been saying with the words in the document to which they signed up, "The New European Way".
Let us be clear, co-ordination of taxes is harmonisation, as Mr. Lafontaine has helpfully made clear. When the other countries in Europe talk about ending harmful tax competition, they are talking about getting rid of Britain's low-tax environment, which has been a magnet for jobs and investment for countries throughout the world.
What about the Liberals? The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) told us that, in his view, taxation is a national matter and that we have a veto which we should be prepared to use. That point was repeated by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). The Liberal party, too, is happy to talk tough at home, as we heard this evening; however, a few weeks ago, in European Standing Committee B, the hon. Member for Twickenham gave a very different account of Liberal policy. He said that there must be a more satisfactory basis for funding the European Union and that an international income tax was a better option. He said that it would make sense if energy taxes were harmonised from the outset. As for the British rebate, he said that it was politically difficult to perpetuate the idea that Britain is uniquely disadvantaged or that it needs special treatment.
The Government say one thing in the United Kingdom and another on the continent. The Liberals appear to say one thing in the Chamber and another in Committee when they hope that no one is listening.
There is no doubt that there is a European agenda for harmonisation of tax. The Prime Minister has proudly produced today a joint statement that he and the German Chancellor have signed. It says that they are opposed to the harmonisation of personal taxes and to a unified system of corporate taxation, but that does not mean that there will be no harmonisation of corporate taxation. Indeed, the document explicitly leaves the door open for harmonised corporate taxation. That is hardly surprising, as Germany is on record as saying that it is high on its list of political priorities. What about all the other taxes? The statement does not mention VAT, taxes on savings or capital taxation. Clearly, they are now all on the agenda in the Government's eyes.
We know that the withholding tax is under discussion. Despite more tough talk from the Chancellor, this Government agreed at ECOFIN in December last year that a Community-wide withholding tax should be introduced. The proposal that the Commission has now brought forward, as instructed, would put at risk thousands of jobs. It would fatally undermine the City of London as an international financial centre. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) said, it would drive the euro bond market out of London and

419
out of reach of the Commission to Zurich or New York. The Chancellor told us that he will not accept the withholding tax and said that he favoured the provision of information instead. That will suit the Commission fine, and the Chancellor will not need to use the veto on that because it is allowed for in the directive. However, it will not suit the City. For many, the compulsory provision of information would be worse than the withholding tax. It would add to the cost of doing business in London and its effect would be the same—it would drive business overseas. The Government should make it clear that neither a withholding tax nor the compulsory provision of information is acceptable and that any such proposal will be vetoed by the United Kingdom.
Another outcome of the ECOFIN meeting last December was the establishment of the code of conduct group, under the chairmanship of the Financial Secretary. We were told at the time that it was a great triumph for Britain and the Chancellor said that it would put us at the heart of the debate. What has it achieved? It has produced a list of 85 so-called harmful tax measures, although we are not allowed to know what those measures are. We are told that the Government are not prepared to place the document in the Library. I hope that the Financial Secretary will now say that she will do so, so that we can read it. We know that one of the measures on the list is the tax relief given to the British film industry. That relief was introduced by this Government, who trumpeted it at the time, and was welcomed by the industry. It has helped to attract more investment to film. I talked to the producer of "Waking Ned", a British film that is having considerable success. He told me that tax relief was a vital factor in helping him to raise the equity investment that he needed. However, according to the Financial Secretary's committee, it is a harmful tax measure and a distortion that must be removed.
Nothing that the Government have said this evening has done anything to reassure us. For all their tough talk, every sentence is hedged with qualifications and escape clauses. They have turned weasel words into an art form and the strong smell of fudge already surrounds the entire issue. The Prime Minister once said that he would never allow this country to be isolated or left behind in Europe. However, leadership sometimes requires one to be isolated and, on this issue, we are prepared to be isolated in Europe. If the Government's pledges mean anything, they should make it clear now that they will say no to harmonisation.
9.49 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I thank hon. Members for their condolences to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his family on the sad death of his father. I am sure that all hon. Members will share those sentiments.
In addition to dwelling on phrases such as "weasel words" and "fudge", and every other catch-phrase that is in the Tory party's brief for today, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) talked about illusion and isolation.
The illusion is that Conservative Members do not want to understand, and do not believe, what is going on both in the debate here in the United Kingdom and in Europe.
420
When the hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party is happy to be isolated, we know that it is because it is completely isolated—isolated from the other place, from the electorate and from reality, it would appear from the contributions that we have heard today.
Let us be clear about the Government's position. Britain's way forward for Europe is the promotion of employment, economic reforms and competitive markets. The Government will not support any action that will threaten jobs or the competitive position of British business. That is nice and clear.
Tax matters coming before the Council, of course, require unanimous decisions. There is no question of tax changes being imposed on us, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). That suggestion is preposterous. Tax requires unanimity. Unanimity means all of the member states, including the United Kingdom.
If a proposal does not meet the test of national interest, we will oppose it and argue our case. If necessary, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said before, we will be prepared to use the veto.
Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: I shall not give way at this moment. I have only 10 minutes to answer all the accusations that have been made against the Government and, out of respect to the House, I should try to do that before any more accusations are made.
The Government believe that fair tax competition is a good thing. We support action to tackle unfair tax practices which distort competition in European economies.
I have the published conclusions from ECOFIN in November 1992, which met under the United Kingdom presidency with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord Lamont, in the chair. It states:
"The Council endorses the concern expressed … about the effects of special tax arrangements designed to attract internationally mobile capital … resulting in the loss of revenue … and unfair competition; and believes that consideration is urgently needed of possible remedies to this problem".
Therefore, let us be clear tonight that it was the Conservative party that initiated the process that led to the code of conduct.
Now I briefly remind the House how we will apply our principles as spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the three specific areas raised in today's debate by the Opposition.
All European VAT matters are subject to agreement by all member states.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Say it again, Dawn.
Dawn Primarolo: All member states.
We will honour our manifesto pledge on VAT. VAT on food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares will remain zero rated. I remind the House that it was the Conservative party that agreed to a minimum VAT rate of 15 per cent. and an illustrious cast of Conservative Members endorsed that. On 2 July 1992, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the

421
Government were committed to the harmonisation of indirect taxes in as far as that was necessary for the internal market.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), that well-known pro-European, signed an explanatory memorandum to the House explaining why we should have the minimum rate—not a minimalist rate, or whatever it was the shadow Chancellor wanted to call it, not nearly a minimum rate, but a minimum rate. That, too, was endorsed by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). That well-known champion of Europe, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), also signed the same memorandum when it came before the House. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, "Let's be minimalist about this." Conservative Members have been minimalist about the truth—nothing else.
There are no Community proposals on the table for corporation tax harmonisation. The Government will not sign up to anything that is not in Britain's national economic interest or that raises business costs and harms investment.
Mrs. Browning rose—
Dawn Primarolo: I will not give way to the hon. Lady. As a Minister in the previous Government, she knows what their policy was, although she has amnesia now. She is suffering under the same illusion and has forgotten their policy.
There is no evidence that we need harmonisation, nor is it clear what would be the benefits of launching into such an enormous project. With such widely varying corporation tax rates across Europe, we believe that tax harmonisation is a non-starter. There have been many quotes—from the Italian and Finnish Finance Ministers, the Spanish Prime Minister and even the French Prime Minister—making it clear that harmonisation of corporation tax rates is not on the agenda.
The rationale behind the withholding tax is prevention of tax evasion. I hope that that is a principle with which all parties in the House, even the Conservatives, can agree. The Government are committed to effective international action to prevent tax evasion and to protecting the competitiveness of the United Kingdom and European financial services industries. In particular, we have said that any future directive must exclude the eurobond market. The proposals as currently drafted are unacceptable. Any decision requires unanimity. I remind hon. Members that that means that everybody must be in favour, so the proposals cannot be changed unless their present form is improved.
The code of conduct aims to tackle harmful tax competition and, by doing so, would create the preconditions for healthy competition. We are helping to protect British jobs which are threatened by unfair subsidies abroad. The code of conduct uses two specific key criteria to decide what is harmful. The first and most important is that a measure must significantly affect the location of business activities in the Community. The second specifies that the potentially harmful measure has an effective level of taxation lower than general levels of taxation in that member state.
422
Under the terms of the code—voted for in European Standing Committee B—five measures in the United Kingdom tax system are on the list of measures that could fall into that category. That does not mean that they are harmful, and the group has yet to reach its conclusions. We do not believe that those measures are harmful and we have submitted a robust defence of them to the group. We are confident that they do not constitute harmful tax measures because all five satisfy the criteria for not being harmful; they are proportionate in their target—[Interruption]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much conversation. It should be borne in mind that this is an Opposition Supply day.
Dawn Primarolo: This is obviously too hard for Conservative Members to follow, because I am telling them what is really going on instead of talking about their illusions.
The Government are pursuing a clear agenda in Europe. It is about shaping a better Europe, engaging in debate and making sure that our best interests are represented—interests that Conservative Members cannot even recognise.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 359.

Division No. 21]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Faber, David

Amess, David

Fabricant, Michael

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Fox, Dr Liam

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fraser, Christopher

Bercow, John

Gale, Roger

Beresford, Sir Paul

Garnier, Edward

Blunt, Crispin

Gibb, Nick

Body, Sir Richard

Gill, Christopher

Boswell, Tim

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Gray, James

Brady, Graham

Green, Damian

Brazier, Julian

Greenway, John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Grieve, Dominic

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Burns, Simon

Hague, Rt Hon William

Butterfill, John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Cash, William

Hammond, Philip

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hawkins, Nick

Hayes, John

Chope, Christopher

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Clappison, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Horam, John

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Collins, Tim

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Colvin, Michael

Hunter, Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Cran, James

Jenkin, Bernard

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Key, Robert

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Duncan, Alan

Lansley, Andrew

Duncan Smith, Iain

Letwin, Oliver

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Evans, Nigel

Lidington, David

423

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Soames, Nicholas

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Loughton, Tim

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spring, Richard

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Steen, Anthony

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Swayne, Desmond

McLoughlin, Patrick

Syms, Robert

Major, Rt Hon John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Maples, John

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Mates, Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Tredinnick, David

May, Mrs Theresa

Trend, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Tyrie, Andrew

Norman, Archie

Walter, Robert

Ottaway, Richard

Wardle, Charles

Page, Richard

Wells, Bowen

Paice, James

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Paterson, Owen

Whittingdale, John

Pickles, Eric

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Prior, David

Wilkinson, John

Randall, John

Willetts, David

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wilshire, David

Robathan, Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Woodward, Shaun

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Yeo, Tim

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Ruffley, David

St Aubyn, Nick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shepherd, Richard

Mr. Stephen Day and

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Mr. Nigel Waterson.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Adams, Mrs lrene (Paisley N)

Burgon, Colin

Ainger, Nick

Burnett, John

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Burstow, Paul

Allan, Richard

Butler, Mrs Christine

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Cable, Dr Vincent

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Caborn, Richard

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Atkins, Charlotte

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Austin, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ballard, Jackie

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Barnes, Harry

Cann, Jamie

Barron, Kevin

Caplin, Ivor

Battle, John

Casale, Roger

Bayley, Hugh

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Beard, Nigel

Chaytor, David

Begg, Miss Anne

Chidgey, David

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Bennett, Andrew F

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Benton, Joe

Bermingham, Gerald

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Berry, Roger

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Betts, Clive

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Blackman, Liz

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Blizzard, Bob

Clelland, David

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Clwyd, Ann

Boateng, Paul

Cohen, Harry

Borrow, David

Coleman, Iain

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Colman, Tony

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Connarty, Michael

Bradshaw, Ben

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Brand, Dr Peter

Cooper, Yvette

Breed, Colin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Corston, Ms Jean

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cranston, Ross

Browne, Desmond

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

424

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cummings, John

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Howells, Dr Kim

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Darvill, Keith

Humble, Mrs Joan

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hurst, Alan

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hutton, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Illsley, Eric

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Ingram, Adam

Dawson, Hilton

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Denham, John

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dobbin, Jim

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Doran, Frank

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Dowd, Jim

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Drown, Ms Julia

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Edwards, Huw

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Keeble, Ms Sally

Ennis, Jeff

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Etherington, Bill

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Fearn, Ronnie

Keetch, Paul

Fisher, Mark

Kemp, Fraser

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Khabra, Piara S

Flint, Caroline

Kidney, David

Flynn, Paul

Kilfoyle, Peter

Follett, Barbara

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Fyfe, Maria

Laxton, Bob

Gapes, Mike

Lepper, David

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Leslie, Christopher

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Levitt, Tom

Gerrard, Neil

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Linton, Martin

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Livingstone, Ken

Godman, Dr Norman A

Livsey, Richard

Godsiff, Roger

Lock, David

Goggins, Paul

Love, Andrew

Golding, Mrs Llin

McAllion, John

Gorrie, Donald

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McCabe, Steve

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Grocott, Bruce

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Grogan, John

McDonnell, John

Gunnell, John

McFall, John

Hain, Peter

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McIsaac, Shona

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hancock, Mike

McNulty, Tony

Hanson, David

MacShane, Denis

Harris, Dr Evan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Harvey, Nick

McWalter, Tony

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

McWilliam, John

Healey, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Mallaber, Judy

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Heppell, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hesford, Stephen

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Hill, Keith

Martlew, Eric

Hinchliffe, David

Maxton, John

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hoey, Kate

Merron, Gillian

Home Robertson, John

Michael, Alun

Hood, Jimmy

Michie, Bill (Shef-ld Heeley)

Hope, Phil

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

425

Milburn, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Miller, Andrew

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mitchell, Austin

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Moore, Michael

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Snape, Peter

Morley, Elliot

Soley, Clive

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mudie, George

Steinberg, Gerry

Mullin, Chris

Stevenson, George

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stinchcombe, Paul

Norris, Dan

Stoate, Dr Howard

Oaten, Mark

Stott, Roger

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stringer, Graham

O'Hara, Eddie

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Olner, Bill

Stunell, Andrew

O'Neill, Martin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Öpik, Lembit

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pendry, Tom

Temple—Morris, Peter

Perham, Ms Linda

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pickthall, Colin

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Pike, Peter L

Timms, Stephen

Plaskitt, James

Tipping, Paddy

Pollard, Kerry

Todd, Mark

Pope, Greg

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Pound, Stephen

Touhig, Don

Powell, Sir Raymond

Trickett, Jon

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Truswell, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh-ton SE)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Primarolo, Dawn

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Quinn,Lawrie

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Radice, Giles

Tyler, Paul

Rammell, Bill

Vaz, Keith

Rapson, Syd

Wallace, James

Raynsford, Nick

Walley, Ms Joan

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Ward, Ms Claire

Rendel, David

Wareing, Robert N

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Watts, David

Webb, Steve

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

White, Brian

Rooney, Terry

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wicks, Malcolm

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Rowlands, Ted

Ruane, Chris

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Wills, Michael

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Winnick, David

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Salter, Martin

Wise, Audrey

Sanders, Adrian

Wood, Mike

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wray, James

Savidge, Malcolm

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Shaw, Jonathan

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Sheerman, Barry

Wyatt, Derek

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Shipley, Ms Debra

Tellers for the Noes:

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mr. David Jamieson and

Singh, Marsha

Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 161.

Division No. 22]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Ainger, Nick

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Dawson, Hilton

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Denham, John

Ashton, Joe

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Atherton, Ms Candy

Dobbin, Jim

Atkins, Charlotte

Donohoe, Brian H

Austin, John

Doran, Frank

Barnes, Harry

Dowd, Jim

Barron, Kevin

Drown, Ms Julia

Battle, John

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bayley, Hugh

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Beard, Nigel

Edwards, Huw

Begg, Miss Anne

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Ennis, Jeff

Benton, Joe

Etherington, Bill

Bermingham, Gerald

Fisher, Mark

Berry, Roger

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Betts, Clive

Flint, Caroline

Blackman, Liz

Flynn, Paul

Blears, Ms Hazel

Follett, Barbara

Blizzard, Bob

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Boateng, Paul

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Borrow, David

Fyfe, Maria

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Gapes, Mike

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Bradshaw, Ben

Gerrard, Neil

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Gibson, Dr Ian

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Browne, Desmond

Godman, Dr Norman A

Burgon, Colin

Godsiff, Roger

Butler, Mrs Christine

Goggins, Paul

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Golding, Mrs Llin

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Grogan, John

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Gunnell, John

Cann, Jamie

Hain, Peter

Caplin, Ivor

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Casale, Roger

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hanson, David

Chaytor, David

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Chisholm, Malcolm

Healey, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hepburn, Stephen

Heppell, John

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hesford, Stephen

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hill, Keith

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Clelland, David

Hoey, Kate

Clwyd, Ann

Home Robertson, John

Cohen, Harry

Hood, Jimmy

Coleman, Iain

Hope, Phil

Colman, Tony

Hopkins, Kelvin

Connarty, Michael

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Howells, Dr Kim

Cooper, Yvette

Hoyle, Lindsay

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corston, Ms Jean

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cranston, Ross

Hurst, Alan

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hutton, John

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Illsley, Eric

Cummings, John

Ingram, Adam

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Darvill, Keith

Johnson, Miss Melanie

427

(Welwyn Hatfield)

O'Hara, Eddie

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Olner, Bill

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

O'Neill, Martin

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pendry, Tom

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Perham, Ms Linda

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pickthall, Colin

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pike, Peter L

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Plaskitt, James

Kemp, Fraser

Pollard, Kerry

Khabra, Piara S

Pope, Greg

Kidney, David

Pound, Stephen

Kilfoyle, Peter

Powell, Sir Raymond

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Primarolo, Dawn

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Quin, Ms Joyce

Laxton, Bob

Quinn, Lawrie

Lepper, David

Radice, Giles

Leslie, Christopher

Rammell, Bill

Levitt, Tom

Rapson, Syd

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Raynsford, Nick

Linton, Martin

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Livingstone, Ken

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Lock, David

Love, Andrew

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

McAllion, John

Rooney, Terry

McAvoy, Thomas

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McCabe, Steve

Rowlands, Ted

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Ruane, Chris

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

McDonnell, John

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McFall, John

Salter, Martin

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sarwar, Mohammad

McIsaac, Shona

Savidge, Malcolm

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mackinlay, Andrew

Shipley, Ms Debra

McNulty, Tony

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

MacShane, Denis

Singh, Marsha

Mactaggart, Fiona

Skinner, Dennis

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWilliam, John

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Snape, Peter

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Martlew, Eric

Steinberg, Gerry

Maxton, John

Stevenson, George

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Merron, Gillian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Michael, Alun

Stoate, Dr Howard

Michie, Bill (Shef-ld Heeley)

Stott, Roger

Milburn, Alan

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Miller, Andrew

Stringer, Graham

Mitchell, Austin

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Moffatt, Laura

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Moran, Ms Margaret

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Morley, Elliot

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Temple—Morris, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Mudie, George

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mullin, Chris

Timms, Stephen

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Tipping, Paddy

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Todd, Mark

Norris, Dan

Touhig, Don

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Trickett, Jon

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

428

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Wills, Michael

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Winnick, David

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Vaz, Keith

Wise, Audrey

Walley, Ms Joan

Wood, Mike

Ward, Ms Claire

Wray, James

Wareing, Robert N

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Watts, David

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

White, Brian

Wyatt, Derek

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Wicks, Malcolm

Tellers for the Ayes:

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Mr. David Jamieson and

Jane Kennedy.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Allan, Richard

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Amess, David

Gorrie, Donald

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Green, Damian

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Greenway, John

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Grieve, Dominic

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Ballard, Jackie

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Bercow, John

Hammond, Philip

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hancock, Mike

Blunt, Crispin

Harris, Dr Evan

Body, Sir Richard

Harvey, Nick

Boswell, Tim

Hawkins, Nick

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hayes, John

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Brady, Graham

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Brand, Dr Peter

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Brazier, Julian

Horam, John

Breed, Colin

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Browning, Mrs Angela

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Jenkin, Bernard

Burnett, John

Keetch, Paul

Burns, Simon

Key, Robert

Burstow, Paul

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Butterfill, John

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Cable, Dr Vincent

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Lansley, Andrew

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Letwin, Oliver

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Chidgey, David

Lidington, David

Chope, Christopher

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Clappison, James

Livsey, Richard

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Collins, Tim

Llwyd, Elfyn

Colvin, Michael

Loughton, Tim

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Cran, James

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Major, Rt Hon John

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Maples, John

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Mates, Michael

Duncan, Alan

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Duncan Smith, Iain

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

May, Mrs Theresa

Evans, Nigel

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Faber, David

Moore, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Fearn, Ronnie

Oaten, Mark

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Öpik, Lembit

Foster, Don (Bath)

Ottaway, Richard

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Page, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam

Paice, James

Fraser, Christopher

Paterson, Owen

Gale, Roger

Pickles, Eric

Garnier, Edward

Prior, David

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Randall, John

Gibb, Nick

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gill, Christopher

Rendel, David

429

Robathan, Andrew

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Tredinnick, David

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Trend, Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Tyler, Paul

Ruffley, David

Tyrie, Andrew

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wallace, James

St Aubyn, Nick

Walter, Robert

Sanders, Adrian

Wardle, Charles

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Webb, Steve

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

Wells, Bowen

Soames, Nicholas

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Whittingdale, John

Spicer, Sir Michael

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Spring, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Willetts, David

Wilshire, David

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Stunell, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Swayne, Desmond

Yeo, Tim

Syms, Robert

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mr. Stephen Day and

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recalls that the last Government's record on tax was one of broken promises, that it raised taxes 22 times having promised to cut taxes, including putting VAT on domestic fuel and power having specifically promised not to do so, and further that it tried to raise VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent.; welcomes the fact that this Government has kept all of its promises on taxation, including its promises not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax and cutting VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.; and further welcomes the Government's approach to taxation at an international level, favouring fair tax competition, supporting concerted action at European level, including through the EU Code of Conduct Group, to deal with discriminatory and unfair tax practices that distort real competition, stating that it will not support measures that are not in Britain's national economic interest or that damage British business, harm investment and jobs, or damage Europe's competitiveness, and reiterating that it will retain the veto on tax issues and that decisions on tax will remain subject to unanimity.

Finance Act 1998 (Section 155)
10.25 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move,
That the Code for Fiscal Stability, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
As the House will be aware, section 155 of the Finance Act 1998 requires the Government to lay before Parliament a code for fiscal stability. We have put the code on to a statutory basis because it will make policy more transparent and Governments readily answerable for any departure from the code.
The code requires the Government to apply five key principles to the formulation of fiscal and debt management policy. They are transparency, stability, responsibility, fairness and efficiency. Those principles are fundamental to a commonsense approach to fiscal management. By requiring Governments to specify objectives and rules that are consistent with those principles, the code will ensure that policy is set for the long-term benefit of the British economy.
The code sets out in detail how the Government will apply the five principles to the formulation of fiscal and debt management policy. The first principle is that of transparency. This requires the Government to publish enough information to allow the public to scrutinise both fiscal policy and the public finances. We believe that transparency will encourage Governments to plan for the long term and therefore encourage a more sustainable fiscal policy.
The principle of stability requires the Government to set fiscal policy in a way that is consistent with high and stable levels of growth and employment.
Responsible and prudent management of public assets, liabilities and fiscal risks is also fundamental to managing public finances in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom. The principle of responsibility means that Governments should plan and operate policy to ensure long-term sustainability and viability of public services.
The Government are committed to fairness both between and within generations. The principle of fairness means that it is important to take into account the financial effects of current fiscal policy on future generations.
The last principle that the code requires is that fiscal policy be set in accordance with the principle of efficiency. That means that Governments should not waste resources or cause resources to be wasted elsewhere. Value for money in the use of scarce resources is of prime importance if the UK is to achieve its social and economic goals.
The Government believe that those five principles are the appropriate basis for setting out our fiscal policy. The principle of transparency outlined in the code requires the Government to be open about their fiscal and debt management objectives and rules. That is in stark contrast to the Opposition who, when they were in government, changed their fiscal rules so that we were never sure whether they were able to meet them.
The Labour Government set out their fiscal rules in their first Budget in July 1997. The first is the golden rule that, over the economic cycle, the Government will borrow only to invest. The second is the sustainable

431
investment rule that public debt as a proportion of national income will be held over the economic cycle at a stable and prudent level.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the German Government and the Bundesbank have all but abandoned the golden rule? They have concluded that the golden rule is completely meaningless—indeed there has been a supreme court ruling in Germany to that effect—and it is no longer used as a tool of fiscal policy. Why, at the very time that the Germans, who more or less invented the golden rule, have abandoned it, have the Government decided to try to adopt it?
Mr. Byers: That appears to be an argument in favour of the harmonisation of golden rules. We shall not endorse that, just as we shall not endorse tax harmonisation. We believe that the argument is well made in respect of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman wants to present the counter-argument, he is perfectly entitled to do so. It is for the German Government to make their own decisions on those matters; in this case, it is not a decision that we would have made ourselves.
Mr. Tyrie: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
Mr. Byers: No. The debate is a short one and many hon. Members will want to speak on an issue as important as section 155 of the Finance Act 1998. I know that many Opposition Members are eager to participate in the debate and, as always, I want to provide the opportunity for as many Back Benchers as possible to speak. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I certainly look forward to hearing his pearls of wisdom.
I had better quit while I am ahead and return to the subject of the two fiscal rules being operated by the Government. Those rules are consistent with the principles outlined in the code. Parliament and the public will have available to them the information needed to assess our performance against those rules.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's setting out of the code, so that we know exactly what it means and what it implies. However, we had an economic forecast at the time of the Budget, in July, and at the time of the autumn statement. Is it the intention to have those three forecasts on a similar basis?
Mr. Byers: Later, I shall outline the publications that we intend to make available to ensure that we meet the principle of transparency, to which I referred earlier. At that point, I shall address my right hon. Friend's question.
The Government believe that we have put in place a coherent framework and set firm fiscal operating rules. We tightened fiscal policy soon after coming into office, reducing borrowing by £20 billion last year. That has re-established sound public finances in the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said on 3 November, our cautious and prudent approach to the public finances means that, even with more moderate growth next year, we are on track to meet our tough fiscal rules.
432
Following the fiscal tightening last year, we expect a surplus on the current budget this year and over the current cycle. The expected surplus on the current budget this year contrasts with deficits in all but three of the past 25 years. In addition, the ratio of debt to national income is expected to fall below 40 per cent. from next year.
The principle of transparency defined in the code requires transparency in setting debt management policy as well. The Government's objective for debt management is laid down in the code for fiscal stability. The objective is to minimise over the long term the cost of meeting the Government's financing needs, without taking undue risks with, or hindering the operation of, monetary policy.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: The Chief Secretary says that he intends to bring down the level of debt to less than 40 per cent. of gross domestic product but, under the previous Government, it reached a low point of only 28 per cent. of GDP. When will the right hon. Gentleman reach that figure?
Mr. Byers: Regrettably, that low point occurred some years ago and, on 1 May last year, the figure was well over 40 per cent. Our objective is to reduce it to below that figure, as I explained.
An important feature of the code, following the principle of transparency, is the reporting arrangements that it lays down. Those arrangements will improve the ability of Parliament and the public to scrutinise fiscal and debt management policy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, we have already foreshadowed that we will make three specific publications available as a result of the key transparency principle.
There will be a statutory requirement to produce a pre-Budget report, which will include proposals for consideration in the Budget. A financial statement and Budget report will report on Budget measures and economic and fiscal projections, and an economic and fiscal strategy report will set out the Government's long-term strategy and assess short-term outcomes against objectives. The code also requires the Government to publish—
Mr. Sheldon: When will the last report be published? Will it be in July?
Mr. Byers: At this stage, the Government do not want to be pinned down to any specific month. Our intentions are transparent in terms of the publications, but that does not mean that we have to announce six months in advance precisely when they will be published. We want to be in a position to publish reports when it is appropriate to do so—which is what we will do.
The code requires the Government to publish each year a debt management report on the structure of their borrowing. That report will give the public sufficient information to allow scrutiny of the debt management policy. I believe that those reporting requirements are a major step forward in transparency and scrutiny. Never before have such demanding requirements been made of a British Government. Clear objectives will be set and there will be an honest assessment each year of progress against those objectives. Unlike the previous Government, we will ensure that the objectives are met.

433
Transparency and prudence are the key themes of the new fiscal framework. That is why the code formalises the role of the National Audit Office in auditing any changes to the key assumptions underlying the public finances forecast. The National Audit Office has already audited those assumptions and found them to be "reasonable". The code ensures that the National Audit Office will continue to play a key role in the Budget process.
Mr. Nick Gibb: Given that there were changes to the assumptions used in the November pre-Budget report, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why no auditor's report was released before that pre-Budget report when one was produced in March and November last year and in March this year?
Mr. Byers: The National Audit Office will undoubtedly comment on the changes that were introduced. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that they were implemented to ensure that we complied with the European standards on accounting introduced in 1995. They are perfectly in order and the National Audit Office will report on them in due course. It is no secret that the changes were made to meet those 1995 requirements, which is perfectly understandable.
High-quality information is the basis for good decision making, so the code requires the Government to use best-practice accounting methods. A key element of that is the adoption of resource accounting and budgeting, which will help with planning and accounting for the resources used by Government.
This Government were elected because we promised to modernise Britain—a modernisation that was long overdue. We inherited an economy with fundamental weaknesses: a poor record of productivity and investment and a constant cycle of boom and bust that had afflicted our economy for too long. In the past 20 years, we have endured the two worst recessions on record and an unsustainable boom. Over the past 10 years, no European Union country has suffered as much instability as the United Kingdom.
Our first task on taking office last year was to put in place the building blocks for stability. It is only through stability that individuals and businesses can plan with confidence for the future so that we can achieve the higher levels of growth and employment that we all want to see. We took action immediately on coming to office by giving the Bank of England independence in setting interest rates.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Chief Secretary tell the House at what stage drafts of the pre-Budget report were circulated to his Cabinet colleagues? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was ignorant of important features of the report when he appeared before the Trade and Industry Committee on 4 November, 48 hours after the report's publication.
Mr. Byers: I am beginning to regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I was pleased when he received the Back Bencher of the year award a couple of weeks ago. It does not need to be returned. I told him that it was well deserved. He made an amusing speech about being picked up by the political sketch writer of The Guardian for splitting his infinitives. I can tell him that there are a few Labour Members who would gladly split his infinitives.
434
I honestly cannot remember exactly when the drafts were circulated. It was a few weeks ago. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is never ignorant about such matters. He is always perfectly on message, as we know.
I was talking about giving the Bank of England independence in setting interest rates and I thought that that was why the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) wanted to intervene. Interest rate decisions are now made in the long-term interests of the economy, not for short-term political gain. As a result, long-term interest rates have fallen to their lowest level for 35 years, which is a clear demonstration of the credibility of the new monetary framework. People and businesses can plan ahead and invest with greater confidence, knowing that high and damaging inflation episodes of the past will not be repeated.
Just as we had to put in place a new monetary framework, we also had to put in place a new framework for fiscal policy. The previous Government's fiscal policy led to a record deficit of £50 billion and, over the previous economic cycle, they had a current budget deficit of £149 billion. Their fiscal policy was made behind closed doors and lacked openness and predictability, which made worse the problems of instability. As with monetary policy, we have introduced a new framework for fiscal policy that is based on an open, transparent and accountable approach.
That is the right way forward for fiscal policy. It is vital for economic stability that public finances are managed responsibly and prudently. The code for fiscal stability will ensure that the Government can live up to the tough standards of fiscal practice imposed on them. I commend the code to the House.
10.42 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The Finance Act 1998, which followed this year's Budget, is one of the longest ever. It was presented to the House in two volumes. Now that it has become law, it has been consolidated into a single volume of more than 400 pages, costing £28.
The Act would have been even longer, and the tome even heavier, if it had included all the taxation measures announced in the Budget, but unfortunately many of them are to be implemented by secondary legislation. For example, the change to corporation tax, which will require accelerated payments from big companies, will be set out in statutory instruments that will never become before the House for scrutiny. That is a scandal, but it means that the Act is not as long as it could have been.
The Act is so long partly because it contains many gimmicks instead of the substance of tax changes. One of those gimmicks is before the House this evening. Section 155 imposes no obligation on the Government beyond a requirement that they should present to the House a code for fiscal stability. A code for fiscal stability already exists. Indeed, the Government published the first one in November 1997, so what is gained by having this one presented to the House? Presumably, a code published by the Government was to be observed by the Government anyway. Nothing is gained by this debate.
The code imposes no rules or discipline on the Government. That became clear from the Chief Secretary's speech. Even the golden rule, which he did

435
mention and of which the Chancellor has been very proud, is not included in the code for fiscal stability. The new document contains no obligation on the Government to abide by any fiscal rules. The Chief Secretary was very unconvincing in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) about the golden rule, but the Chancellor believes very strongly in it. The idea that the Government should borrow only for investment prompts the question of what is to be categorised as investment. There are many examples of the Government reclassifying expenditure as capital expenditure to get around or obey the golden rule.
We conclude either that the Government do not believe that they can keep to the golden rule, and that is why it is not in the code, or—this is more likely—the entire exercise is to create the illusion of financial responsibility and prudence, while in practice they do nothing whatsoever to enforce it. The code will undoubtedly be approved at the end of the debate, but I hope that Back Benchers are aware that this is an entirely vacuous undertaking. It is yet another example of the triumph of spin and presentation over substance and reality.
Even if we take the code as a sort of general guide to action and as a collection of suggestions, the Government are breaking the few suggestions that it contains. They are in breach of the principles for fiscal stability enunciated in the code. The word "prudence" litters the code. Poor old prudence—she is usually wheeled out by Treasury Ministers when they want to cover up some especially reckless affair.
How is it prudent to take a growth forecast for next year, as the Government have, which is so much higher than that of independent analysts and commentators? The Government have done the same for the year after, too. Independent forecasters are predicting that growth in 2000 will be no more than 1.6 per cent. Why is it that the Government have chosen a growth target for that year of 2.5 per cent.? That is higher than they were predicting in the summer. What is prudent about that? How is it right to take a prediction in which no one else believes?
Even the Confederation of British Industry is now talking about a black hole in the public finances. Earlier this week, the director general of the CBI said that the Government risk finding a
"black hole in public finances"
unless they can reduce demand for increases in social security spending, health and education. Instead of being prudent, in line with the code for fiscal stability, the Government are being reckless.
Let us consider the treatment of unemployment, and the cost of it in published documents. Everyone agrees that the level of unemployment is a crucial determinant of public expenditure, especially the social security budget. In the comprehensive spending review in July, the Government estimated that unemployment would be flat at the April 1998 level. Why, four months later, in the pre-Budget report that was published just a few weeks ago, has that suddenly been changed? Suddenly, unemployment is predicted at the September 1998 level. Accordingly, social security expenditure has been reduced.
We all know that the unemployment figure in September was probably the low point. No one outside the Treasury seriously believes that unemployment will
436
not rise in the coming months. Indeed, it has already started to rise. Why therefore pretend in the pre-Budget report that it is realistic to hold unemployment and spending on benefits for the unemployed at that September level?
The code of fiscal stability talks about prudence, responsibility and transparency. Will the Chief Secretary explain how it is prudent or responsible or transparent to lock in at a wholly unrealistic prediction of social security expenditure, based on the low point in the unemployment cycle? If he cannot tell us now, will he confirm now or later that, when unemployment starts to rise, he will revise upward his estimates of social security expenditure?
That leads directly to the mystery of the National Audit Office involvement. As the Chief Secretary said, the National Audit Office is asked to comment on key assumptions, especially on whether any assumptions have been changed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) pointed out, the National Audit Office commented on the Government's first Budget of July 1997, their pre-Budget statement of November 1997 and their Budget in March 1998 but not—suddenly and mysteriously—the pre-Budget statement that they presented to the House last month.
Not only has the NAO suddenly stopped auditing the assumptions, but doing so breaches the code for fiscal stability. It is written very clearly on page 4 of the code, which the House is invited to approve, that the Government will
"invite the National Audit Office to audit changes in the key assumptions and conventions underpinning the fiscal projections".
That is repeated and expanded upon on page 10. Yet there was no National Audit Office audit of last month's figures.
The Chief Secretary rather lamely said that he expected that the NAO would take some interest in the figures—but that is not the point. The code for fiscal stability requires that the Government ask the NAO to audit such changes. I have just pointed out changes to key assumptions; I described the one affecting unemployment. Assuming that it will be flat at the April level is a major change in the assumptions, yet the National Audit Office has not been invited to comment on it. I wonder why not. Actually, I do not wonder why not. I know the answer, and shall tell the House.
In July 1997, the Government made an unemployment assumption of 1.65 million claimants, which was examined in considerable detail by the National Audit Office. The Comptroller and Auditor General reported on that, and went into the fact that the Government's assumption corresponded to similar estimates made by outside commentators. He concluded, on page 8 of his report:
"As a level assumption for claimant unemployment, the figure of 1.65 million would seem consistent with the available independent assessments of unemployment prospects."
In other words, the Comptroller and Auditor General very carefully compared the Government's figure with outside assessments. He concluded that it was a reasonable assumption, and he listed at the back of the report the names of all the outside commentators and forecasters whose views he had taken into account.
The reason the Government have not done the same for the latest pre-Budget report is that their latest unemployment assumption is plainly ludicrous. As I

437
mentioned, it is now down to 1.3 million—the September level—but none of those independent forecasters could be brought to believe, or could be induced to suggest, that the figure was anything but a temporary phenomenon and, I am afraid, set to rise. Everyone outside the Treasury knows that unemployment is already rising. That is why the National Audit Office has not been asked to do its checks on the pre-Budget statement, already in contravention of the code of fiscal stability.
Mr. Steve Webb: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman used to be a Treasury Minister; I do not recall exactly when. When he was a Treasury Minister, was the practice on assumptions about unemployment to use a consensus of estimates, or to assume level unemployment?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We made estimates of unemployment, and they turned out to be correct. The hon. Gentleman knows that the golden economic legacy that we bequeathed to the Government included falling unemployment, in addition to stable inflation and steady growth. Therefore, we were absolutely right to estimate, in our published documents, that expenditure on that part of social security was falling. We published our forecasts, and they turned out to be right. The Government have published their forecasts and already, a month later, they are shown to be unrealistic.
However, I am arguing that the Government, by failing to invite the National Audit Office to audit their assumptions, are breaching the rules, not only of common sense, but of their own code of fiscal stability, which they are inviting the House to approve tonight.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: One of the key determinants of the assumption on tax receipts is the assumption relating to economic growth, and the audited assumption is the trend GDP. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is interesting that, between the Budget in March and the pre-Budget report in November, the Treasury did not update its assumption relating to trend GDP, or its assumption relating to economic growth, as it did with the unemployment count, because that might have led to a reduction, and a challenge to the Government's assumption about future tax receipts?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend has spotted another—and glaring—flaw. There is an asymmetry. The Treasury does not alter its assumptions if they help the Government's case on the revenue side, but it does alter the assumptions when they flatter the expenditure forecasts.
The disturbing aspect of all this is the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General, who knows perfectly well what is going on, has suddenly been frozen out of the entire process. The series of NAO reports, going back to the first Budget, has suddenly been stopped; and yet, bizarrely, it is a written requirement in the code of fiscal stability that such a report be produced. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will explain to the House, before we approve this ludicrous document, exactly how the Government expect to get away with breaking the rules before the ink is dry on the documents.
Not only unemployment assumptions are changed; there is an effect on social security expenditure generally, the forecasts for which have been reduced between the
438
July figures, the comprehensive spending review and the pre-Budget statement figures produced last month. The total of those social security expenditure forecasts is now lower by £7 billion over the next three years. Why was not that figure audited by the National Audit Office?
I believe that we are getting near to an answer when we detect a division between one part of the Government and another. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked the Economic Secretary why the NAO had, apparently, not been asked to audit the figures. He received the following startling answer:
"The assumptions and conventions … in the pre-Budget report were unchanged".
We have already discussed how the unemployment assumptions clearly have been changed. Help for this view comes from an unexpected quarter. I asked the Secretary of State for Social Security why it was that there had been this rather dramatic cut in social security expenditure projections. The right hon. Gentleman helpfully confirmed to me:
"Revisions to the forecast of social security expenditure published in the pre-Budget report reflect new information about caseloads and economic assumptions."
There we have it. The Treasury thinks that there are no changes in the economic assumptions and we all know that there have been. To be fair to the Secretary of State for Social Security, he also understands that there have been those changes. Again, can those on the Treasury Bench explain themselves? We have an interesting split between the Treasury and the Department of Social Security and we need to get to the bottom of it.
At least one of the answers that we have received is misleading. They cannot both be true. Either there have been changes to economic assumptions or there have not. Either the Treasury is telling the truth or the Department of Social Security is. Someone is misleading the House. The Minister who replies to the debate owes the House an explanation.
I can well understand why the Government are so sensitive about these forecasts of social security expenditure. We all remember the broken promises, and what the Prime Minister said bears repeating. The right hon. Gentleman said that
"as we get the welfare bills down … then we can release more money into education and health".
So first there would be cuts in social security, then extra expenditure on education and health. That is one of the promises that went out of the window in the first few months. I cannot remember which happened first. Was it the sacking of the then Minister for Welfare Reform or was it that the Government published an estimate for social security expenditure requiring an extra £37.5 billion on the budget over the next three years—almost as much as the additional expenditure that they promised for health and education combined?
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to let us know what exactly he proposes to cut from the social security budget?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am asking the Government for no more than what we achieved. In the last three years of the Conservative Government, and in the expenditure targets that we left behind, social security expenditure in total rose by only 1.5 per cent. I am asking the

439
Government to continue with our record. Instead, they have published figures showing that, in the next three years, social security expenditure will rise by more than 3 per cent. every year in real terms. I am not asking the Government to do the impossible. I am asking them instead simply to continue the record of controlling expenditure that the Conservative Government achieved in practice.
Mr. Webb: Presumably the only relevant comparison would be non-cyclical social security spending over each of the Parliaments. Since 1979, every Conservative Parliament increased social security spending by more than the Labour Government plan to.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The figures which I have quoted come from the Library. The Government may be frightened of submitting their figures to the National Audit Office but I am not frightened of my figures being audited, checked and verified by the Library. I shall gladly pass over to the hon. Gentleman after the debate the figures that set out the record that we achieved in practice and left behind in the expenditure targets, which the Government said that they were taking over from us. The document states that the object is
"to allow the public to scrutinise the conduct of fiscal policy".
That is a laudable aim, which I share, but what would a member of the public find if he attempted to do so? He would be met by a blizzard of changed statistics. Familiar and tested measurements of the public accounts have been renamed. The public sector borrowing requirement, familiar to all of us, has suddenly become the public sector net cash requirement. The control total, which was effective in controlling public expenditure, including social security, when we were in office, has been abolished. Privatisation has become the public-private partnership, and we discovered earlier today that tax harmonisation in Europe is to become tax co-ordination in Europe.
Changing all the terms does not aid transparency. The figures have not changed, but a smokescreen has been thrown before members of the public who seek to discover what has happened to their money under Government control.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Accountants have changed their means of accounting at least 10 times in my lifetime. Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House how many times the previous Government changed the means of recording unemployment figures?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because we did not change the definitions in the public accounts or the published documents. We held to the definitions that existed when we took office and we always accounted to the public, transparently, against the previous year's figures. The Government are now recasting the public finances so that they are incomprehensible to a lay reader, despite the obligation in the code for fiscal stability to make the information understandable to the taxpaying public.
I shall give a specific example. My hypothetical member of the public might want to know what had happened to what is now called annually managed
440
expenditure. That is the element in the public accounts that comes under each departmental heading but is under the control of the relevant Secretary of State. The member of the public would find, on page 107 of the comprehensive spending review, that the third biggest departmental item is "Accounting and other adjustments". That is not a trivial sum, because it amounts to £20 billion in the third year. Is it transparent to hide expenditure of that magnitude under that heading?
As someone lucky enough to be a Member of Parliament, I have tabled a parliamentary question to find out what is included under that general heading. I found—surprise, surprise—that the largest item is social security expenditure. It is that part of the working families tax credit that the Government do not wish to show up as mainstream social security expenditure. Why have the Government sought to disguise the full level of social security expenditure? They must be embarrassed by their failure to control the welfare state and they have resorted to fiddled statistics to try to disguise what has happened.
The code contains some permitted exemptions from the transparency principle. The Government need not provide information in a transparent form if it would harm national security or if it would damage the Government's ability to undertake commercial activities. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House under which heading he claims exemption from the transparency principle when disguising a large element of social security expenditure under the heading "Accounting and other adjustments"?
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that mortgage tax relief should be reclassified as housing expenditure, or that tax relief on pensions should be reclassified as social security expenditure? Does he think that the distinction between current and capital is a useful one in the public accounts?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are talking here about a social security benefit. This is a welfare benefit and it should be classified as such. If the Government wish to take out part of that and show it as a different line, let them do that. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously claiming that it is part of the transparency principle not to describe it as in any way connected with the working families tax credit, but to bury it as an accounting or other adjustment?
The code, and the whole of section 155, is an exercise in posturing. It places no real disciplines or obligations on the Government. Even if it can be taken as a suggestion of some general principles, the Government have already broken them, in the way that I have described.
To some extent, this is a useful debate. To that extent, perhaps it is a useful guide; not for what it requires from the Government, but for what it tells us about the Government. Instead of the principles of transparency, stability, responsibility, fairness and efficiency, we are increasingly finding from the Government an opaque treatment of unstable accounts, presented in an irresponsible manner, unfair to the tax-paying public and inefficient to the economy at large.
By all means, let the Government publish this code and let them try to prove the opposite, but they will be found out. They will be judged not on the code or on what they say, but by what they do in practice. There is a large and growing gap between the Government's rhetoric and what they do in practice. The publication of the code simply goes to show that that is the case.
11.12 pm
Sir Michael Spicer: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory) has just said, the code for fiscal stability is a load of rubbish. My right hon. Friend put it more politely. He described it as misleading spin. However, it is more than just misleading; it is dangerously misleading.
Principle 3a is transparency, but the code is the opposite of transparency. As my right hon. Friend said, the golden rule, which the code does not mention, but which the Chief Secretary did, lies behind the whole concept of fiscal probity. The golden rule is probably the most muddling, obscure and spin-infested concept that one could imagine.
First, it is wrong and misleading because the distinction between capital and current spending in public expenditure is false.
Mr. Cousins: What!
Sir Michael Spicer: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to develop my point, I shall happily give way to him. We debate matters happily on the Select Committee on the Treasury, so we can do so in the House for once.
The Government recognise that the distinction is misleading, because, as has been said, they keep on reclassifying capital and current spending. The blur is there, and the Government know it. It is misleading because, as we all know, there is a direct connection between decisions on capital spending and decisions on current spending. That link has been recognised for many years. A capital expenditure programme is started, and the current expenditure flows along behind it. Roads may be classified in one case as capital spending, although not always, and maintenance as current spending, and the same applies to hospitals. The distinction is a false one.
The fundamental point as to why the matter is so confusing is that all public spending has to be funded in the same way. Whether it is capital or current spending, public spending is funded through taxation or by borrowing. The macro-economic effects are therefore the same.
In the late summer, the Government said that they would spend £40 billion more than they had originally intended—on health and education—but would magically balance the books on current account. The Budget forecast was couched entirely in terms of balancing the books on current account. That was the spin, but they slipped in a footnote that the total deficit on public spending would go up by £11 billion in the next two or three years.
The measure is so dangerous because the whole thing is presented through the fiscal code and the golden rule by using mirrors—in a way that obscures what is going on with public spending and the public borrowing requirement in particular, which is going up strongly. The Government keep talking about having been frightfully careful with the public finances over the past couple of years, but they have failed to say that they inherited and stuck with Conservative policies—unashamedly, but to the embarrassment of their Back Benchers.
We are now out at sea with Labour. Public spending is going up—no doubt the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) would approve of that—but the Government cannot have it both ways. Public
442
borrowing is also forecast to go up. The false distinction between current and capital accounts in terms of public spending is helping to obscure that from the public, and it is therefore dangerous.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that what matters is not whether an arbitrary distinction is made about current or capital spending so much as whether capital expenditure has sufficient return to repay the initial investment? If that is not the case, the golden rule is no more than rust.
Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Most public spending does not have such a rate of return.
The Government's problem is that they may be deceiving themselves about the so-called golden rule. They have divided up fiscal and monetary policy in such a way that they have been forced into this position on fiscal policy. In reality—as opposed to the spin and this golden rule idea, which may even be deceiving the Government, let alone the public—public expenditure, and with it the borrowing requirement, is going up. That is the small print in the Government's own document.
The monetary authority—the Bank of England—is being asked in statute to keep inflation at 2.5 per cent., although fiscal policy is becoming more profligate and pushing up inflation. As some of us keep reminding the Governor when he appears before the Treasury Committee—much to the embarrassment of some of my Labour colleagues—the Bank is charged specifically and overwhelmingly with keeping inflation at that level. Everything else is subsidiary.
The bank is bound by law, therefore, to keep interest rates higher than they would otherwise be, because of profligacy and perhaps because of the Government's self-deception about the golden rule. Such self-deception is dangerous. Keeping interest rates at such a level will be economically disastrous for the country. The only good news is that the public will start to rumble the Government, and their position will be eaten into.
Although it would be good news if the Government were undermined by all this, such deception—or self-deception—on fiscal policy, fed through the Bank of England on interest rates, has the makings of immediate economic disaster as we face a recessionary period. That is why the code of practice is not merely a con; it is dangerous, and should be exposed and resisted.
11.20 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: Unlike the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and his colleagues, the Liberal Democrats welcome the code for fiscal stability. The Conservative party's view on this issue is not consistent. When it was in government, it believed that there should be a clear framework for setting economic policy. Some of us remember the publication of the medium-term financial strategy. The economic theory that underpinned that framework is not dissimilar to the economic theory underpinning this code for fiscal stability. One no longer expects consistency from the modern Conservative party.
However, I agreed with the right hon. Member for Wells that there is nothing new in the code. I studied the document with anticipation, because, having read the

443
Prime Minister's speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet, in which he expressed his new-found excitement and desire for stability, I thought that there might be something new in it, but I suppose that a code of fiscal stability should not change too much. That is the benefit of it: it gives clarity to economic policy and reduces uncertainty, which helps the public and the House to hold the Government to account for their economic policies.
That is the theory, and it is, in principle, a good way forward. However, I share some of the concerns of the right hon. Member for Wells, because it is not the theory but the practice that matters. We have yet to see the worth and substance behind the code, and we shall be able to measure that properly only when we see what the Government will do when the chips are down. Will they revert to the practice of the previous Government, who fiddled the figures when they did not turn out as they had predicted, or will they rely on the independent auditors? Will they ensure that the figures they put before the House have wide acceptance?
Concern was expressed about the recent pre-Budget report. There were arguments over the growth forecasts, which did not relate to the consensus reached by external forecasters, and there was anxiety that the Government will not be quite as up front and honest as the principles outlined in the code suggest.
We shall give the Government the benefit of the doubt for the moment. We urge them to make progress on some of the points in the code. Page 7 of the code refers to accounting practice:
"The Government shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, adopt a Resource Accounting and Budgeting approach for planning".
I am pleased that the Chief Secretary mentioned that in his opening remarks. I hope that those plans for a new form of accounting will be implemented as soon as possible, because they are vital for the objectives of the fiscal code.
Resource accounting and budgeting will, for the very first time, provide the House and the public with the information that we need to assess whether the Government are promoting fiscal stability and are taking good care of the public purse.
I disagree with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer). I have not heard anything so ridiculous in a debate for some time. There is a clear distinction between capital and current spending. There is an economic difference between a building and a pay cheque, and between a battleship and a benefits cheque. The Conservative Front Bench contains some former distinguished accountants. I hope that, when the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) winds up the debate, he will confirm that the private sector is used to making those important distinctions. It is about time that the public accounts also made those distinctions.
Mr. Lansley: Would the hon. Gentleman care to reflect on the point that he has just made? A battleship is an asset that is used but offers no economic return, whereas revenue expenditure on education may be construed as having a direct economic return. Which of those two should be capitalised in a firm's accounts.
Mr. Davey: There is obviously a difference. It clearly makes sense to budget on a cash flow basis for large sums
444
that are consumed over a period of years. A battleship has value over its lifetime, and there is no reason why the accounts should not reflect that.
It is time that the House had access to the sort of meaningful information that would be provided by resource accounting and budgeting. I am astonished that the Conservatives should talk about the sovereignty of the House in terms of the European debate. When they were in government, they failed to produce information of the kind that the House needs to hold the Government to account. The House does an appalling job in holding the Executive to account over the spending of billions of pounds of taxpayers' money; but the Conservatives, when they were in power, failed to provide the House with the information that we need in order to hold the Executive to account. That was a lamentable failure.
The Conservatives talk about sovereignty, and about defending the rights of the House. When they were in office, they did nothing to enable the House to do its job properly.
Mr. Derek Foster: I find the hon. Gentleman's argument interesting. How would he propose to strengthen the ability of the House—particularly that of Select Committees—to bring the Government to account? In fact, we do not scrutinise any accounts in this place, do we? They all go through on the nod, when no one is here. It happened for years under the Conservatives. Only when the then Opposition called votes—as we often did, until 3 am: unfortunate people were having to vote every 15 minutes—did we actually vote on the accounts. We did it just to keep hon. Members here: we did not do it in order to scrutinise the Government. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) has probably finished his intervention.
Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the intervention, which enables me to draw hon. Members' attention to a report that will soon be forthcoming from the Select Committee on Procedure—a Committee of which, for my sins, I am a member. We are reporting to the House on financial procedure, and on financial reporting to the House.
A number of issues will feature in our report. It relates to information, and resource accounting budgeting will go some way towards providing that. It relates to resources for Select Committees. It relates to changing procedures in the House to enable it to vote on Select Committee reports that have examined departmental spending programmes. A change in procedures and information could enable the House to hold the Executive to account far more effectively.
Let me add a rider. I do not think that this will appear in the Select Committee's report, but we need to change the political system—the rules of our political culture in the United Kingdom. I believe that proportional representation would be very effective in enabling the House to bring the Executive to account.
If the next code for fiscal stability really does develop my theme of resource accounting and budgeting, that will take the fiscal framework much further. Let me say to the Chief Secretary that I hope that that theme will be linked with the public service agreements which I believe that he is soon to announce. I think it very important for those

445
targets to be linked with the accounts, so that the House can see the targets in the context of the money that it votes to the Executive. There is a link there, which follows from the principles of transparency and efficiency that are embedded in the code.
Having praised the Government to some extent, let me add that there are some shortcomings, some of which were mentioned in the Standing Committee that gave rise to this discussion of section 155 of the Act. Those shortcomings are still germane, and I hope that the Government will produce better codes in future. The main point, however, is that there is still no link with the environment—no link with sustainable development. Clearly, sustainable development is connected with fiscal stability, and it should be at the heart of Government economic policy.
Recently, the Deputy Prime Minister published a document called "Sustainability Counts"—and a very good document it is. My only concern is that it was launched by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, not by Her Majesty's Treasury. If the environment is going to be put at the heart of government, such documents should come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That would be a case of joined-up thinking.
The Deputy Prime Minister's foreword to the document states:
"The Government is committed to a new way of thinking. One which puts environmental, social and economic concerns alongside each other at the heart of decision making."
That is absolutely right. It continues:
"We are used to judging the economy's performance on the basis of statistics such as GDP, inflation and employment figures. I want these broader 'quality of life' headline indicators, over time, to become just as useful and familiar."
That is why they should be in the code. The code refers to gross domestic product, to inflation and to employment. I hope that, in due course, the code will refer to those other indicators, which the Deputy Prime Minister at least thinks are important.
Another aspect of that document is directly linked to fiscal stability. One of the headline indicators proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister is social investment. That is introduced in the document with these words:
"Sustainable development means living off our income, not eroding our capital base, so that we are not storing up problems for future generations. Especially important is investment in 'public' assets which benefit everyone."
The Deputy Prime Minister was right. The previous Government eroded social investment, ran down public assets and reduced public wealth in an attempt to create an economic golden legacy, but we knew that just switching things from the public to the private sector did not necessarily create any wealth.
I am not suggesting that privatisation was not a good thing in many industries, but it did not create any new wealth; it just switched ownership. The headline indicators in that document could usefully be incorporated into the code.
There is another shortcoming in the way in which the codes are being framed. They do not talk much about the role of fiscal policy in economic management—how it can be used counter-cyclically, and how, within a single
446
currency, it could, as we heard earlier, take a proactive, not a passive, role in the national economic management of the United Kingdom.
The final shortcoming is that such a code and the documents that it requires a Government to publish, particularly economic and financial projections, will not be updated just before a general election. One of the benefits of the code is that it enables us and the general public to hold the Government to account, so what more important time do we need the code to be updated and published? We need it just before a general election.
History shows us why we need the code to be published at that time. In 1992, I had the pleasure of being economics adviser to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We were analysing the pre-election Budget, which was published by one of my predecessors, now Lord Lamont. He had published the Budget two days before the general election was called in 1992. In that Budget, he introduced the 20p income tax rate, and published a public sector borrowing requirement of £20 billion.
That was not audited. It was much disputed and debated during the general election. When the Conservatives managed to scrape back, unfortunately, after the 1992 election, they changed the PSBR within a few months. It magically went up from £20 billion to £50 million. That is why we need such codes, and why we need them to be published just before elections—so that the British people can vote on facts, not on fatuous made-up figures from the Executive.
The code borrows from an innovation from New Zealand. It borrows many of the ideas in its Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994, but the one lesson that it has not borrowed is the requirement to publish the code just before a general election. That is one reason why Liberal Democrats, although for the moment we are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, remain sceptical about how they will use the code. If the code is merely an illusion—that was the charge made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), from the Conservative Benches—it will be a great disappointment. There is the potential for a significant innovation in economic policy. If it is missed, it will be a great shame.
There is room to extend the concepts contained within the code. Independent auditing of the assumptions behind other Budgets would help. For example, could the Audit Commission review the local government grant settlement and study the assumptions behind that? Could it establish whether the resources that the Government provide to councils—obviously, I have Kingston council in mind—are sufficient for them to meet their statutory obligations? For many councils, I very much doubt it. If we could extend the concept of the fiscal code to such areas, it would be welcome.
I hope that the code will be developed and improved in the years ahead, and that the Chief Secretary will respond positively about how he views the code and its future.
11.36 pm
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Conservative Members have been sceptical as to whether the code for fiscal stability" will achieve anything. In the hope that it

447
might, I remind the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that paragraph 19 of the code mentions an economic and fiscal strategy report and promises that it should
"present illustrative projections of the outlook for the key fiscal aggregates for a period not less than 10 years into the future, based on a range of plausible assumptions."
The subsequent paragraph states that the report should provide
"an analysis of the risks surrounding the economic and fiscal outlook, including Government decisions and other circumstances that have still to be quantified".
Finally, paragraph 22 states:
"The financial statements shall also include any other such indicator as is required to judge … the Government's European commitments".
We are talking about projections and, if those are to include assumptions on Government policy, they must include the policy assumption that this Government intend to join the euro. Therefore, will the Chief Secretary acknowledge that the projections to be published under the code will show the effects on fiscal policy of joining the euro?
I wonder whether the Treasury is aware of a study undertaken by Oxford Economic Forecasting last December, which used the Treasury forecasting model to study what would happen if we joined the euro in 1999. It clearly showed that, because of the dramatic cut in interest rates that would be required for us to join, there would have to be a corresponding increase in general taxation, equivalent at that time to a rise of 3p in the standard rate of income tax.
The stability of our economy is not provided for by a code; it is rooted in the balance and structure of our economy. As that report pointed out last year, in this country, mortgage debt is nearly 60 per cent. of gross domestic product, compared with only 40 per cent. in Germany and 24 per cent. in France. In this country, 80 per cent. of all mortgage debt is on a variable, as opposed to a fixed rate, of interest. According to that research, the comparable figures for Germany and France are only 5 per cent. and the rest of their mortgage debt is on a fixed rate.
Clearly, not only would a cut in interest rates within the euro have a different impact on the stability of our economy, but the sudden reduction that would occur if we joined in the early years, would have a dramatic impact on the stability of our economy. That is why, according to that research, there would have to be a significant increase in general taxation if we joined.
Has the Treasury done a study and will the Chief Secretary's forward projections under the code include an analysis of what will happen if the Government join the euro in the near future? Will he show us the honesty for which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked, and tell us by how much taxation would have to increase?
I asked the Library to undertake further research, in the light of the current economic environment, 12 months after the Oxford research was published. According to the Library, we would now be contemplating a 3 per cent. change in short-term interest rates if we were to join the euro at its start. The analysis clearly shows that general taxation would have to be increased by the equivalent of
448
5p in the pound on income tax, or nearly £10 billion a year in total, for every single year of the projection. That extra taxation would be money taken out of the economy, not to be spent by the Government.
Will the Chief Secretary undertake to make his own analysis, within the terms of the stability code, and tell us what his corresponding figures are.
Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman cited some interesting figures on the impact on mortgages of a hypothetical interest rate if we joined the euro. How much better off would the average mortgage payer be if we were to have those interest rates? Frankly, my appetite is being somewhat whetted by his argument.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Surely hon. Members are familiar with the low fixed-rate mortgages offered by many mortgage brokers. As the "Money Box" programme on Radio 4 has been telling its listeners, the catch comes in the long term, when one tries to renegotiate the terms of the mortgage and finds that there are high penalties for withdrawal. The problem with the cheap offer available from the euro is that the penalty for withdrawal is totally excessive and that, later, when the penalties have to be paid, there may indeed be no withdrawal and no exit.
That is the problem with the euro. At least, under the code, the Government are now duty bound to admit that any benefit to be gained from lower mortgage rates, even in the short term, would be offset by higher taxation. Many retired people on fixed incomes, part of which depends on deposit interest, will be hit by a double whammy. The retired would not only have lower interest on their deposit savings but would have to share the burden of higher taxation.
Does the Chief Secretary accept, in all honesty, that the code, in the range of assumptions on pages 8 to 10, requires him to show the effect on taxation if we were to join the euro in the early years? Has the Treasury made an analysis of the issue, and if not, why not? When will we get Treasury figures on the amount that tax will have to rise—immediately—if we join the euro, as a fiscal offset to the monetary easing that would take place.
11.44 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb: It is clear from this debate that the code is vapid and meaningless, full of airy phrases that can be interpreted to mean exactly what the Government want them to mean. However meaningful they may be, and there are considerable misgivings about that, the Government's two fiscal rules—the golden rule and the sustainable debt rule—are not even incorporated in the code.
The explanation of the code, published in March, said that
"to embrace the Government's two fiscal rules in the code would be unduly restrictive."
How strange then that the Government's consultative document on a proposed code, published six months earlier, said that
"the code needed to be restrictive so as to rule out the possibility of profligate fiscal behaviour."
Just six months later, the Government have changed their minds. No longer do they want to be restricted. No longer do they want to rule out profligate fiscal behaviour,

449
perhaps because in July this year they engaged in profligate fiscal behaviour with their public spending plans for the next three years.
What of the two fiscal rules? The golden rule involves splitting out current expenditure from capital expenditure and declaring that borrowing should not exceed capital expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) correctly said, the distinction between capital and revenue in this context is false. Willem Buiter, a member of the Government's Monetary Policy Committee said, "It has no merits" as a guide to optimal borrowing. The Ernst and Young Item Club in its summer report said that borrowing to fund capital expenditure has exactly the same effect as borrowing to fund current expenditure. They both increase the pressure of demand.
Not only is the golden rule meaningless but it is dependent on the definition of capital expenditure. That is open to abuse by Governments. They can change those definitions. There is nothing in the code about not manipulating the definition of capital expenditure. Indeed, the reason why Willem Buiter is so opposed to the golden rule is just such manipulation that occurs in other jurisdictions such as Germany. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) was right to say that Germany had decided to abandon a golden rule. But this Government are perpetrating that manipulation here.
On page 124 of the November 1998 pre-Budget report published just a few weeks ago, paragraph B28 says:
"Some expenditure that was previously classified as current—chiefly dual-use military equipment and computer software—has been redefined as capital."
Here we come to the nub of the debate—the pretensions in the code to transparency, which is the first of the five principles of fiscal management.
How is it transparent to introduce a new and bogus concept of a surplus on current budget, which the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary again this evening have tried to shorten, in an outrageous attempt at obfuscation, to current surplus? They give the impression that the Government are running a budget surplus, whereas the reality is a budget deficit.
The current surplus is merely a sub-total of revenue less current expenditure before taking into account the so-called capital expenditure. Once the capital expenditure is included, as it should be, the result is a budget deficit. It is a wholly bogus concept—opaque, not transparent.
It gets worse. After the July comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor trumpeted his £30 billion current surplus. That figure was cobbled together by adding up the next three years of so-called surpluses on current budget of £7 billion, £10 billion and £13 billion, equalling £30 billion.
When, some five months later, the Chancellor was forced to recompute his numbers due to lower growth, by some miracle of creative accounting that would rate a place in the campaign of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), that surplus rose—rose, not fell—to £33 billion. How was that calculated? It was calculated by taking the next five years rather than the three years of so-called surpluses on current budget of £1 billion, £3 billion, £8 billion, £10 billion and £11 billion. So it seems that the code does not apply to the statements that the Chancellor makes about the public finances.
450
There is no requirement for him or his Ministers to present to the public the public finances in a clear and transparent way.
"The Code for Fiscal Stability" is a meaningless document. It has no force of law. It has no credibility. It is circumvented at every turn by the Government. I trust that the Chief Secretary will answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about why there is no audit report of the assumptions in the November 1998 pre-Budget report.
11.50 pm
Mr. Byers: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
I begin by addressing the point made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) mentioned at the end of his speech, about the involvement of the National Audit Office and the reasons why it has not reported on the November 1998 pre-Budget report. The reason is simple. As the code says, the Government will
"invite the National Audit Office to audit changes in the key assumptions and conventions underpinning the fiscal projections".
There have been no such changes; therefore, there was no necessity to invite the NAO to carry out such an audit.
The right hon. Member for Wells spun an interesting web of conspiracy about why the September unemployment figures were used for example, but that is a good illustration of how we are following the normal conventions. The pre-Budget report came out in November and used the most recent unemployment figures available, which were the September figures. That is the convention that has been used for many years—indeed, it was used by the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister—and we are simply continuing its use.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Chief Secretary give way.
Mr. Byers: I shall give way, if there is time after I have answered some of the many points raised by right hon. and hon. Members in the debate. I understand that that is the purpose of a winding-up speech.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we have a new format for public finances and was extremely critical on that point. The reason is simply that we are aligning our accounts with international and national definitions, and we make no apologies for doing so.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) started an interesting discussion about the distinction between current and capital expenditure. Given the way in which the Conservative Government slashed capital spending, I can understand why Conservative Members do not like a clear distinction to be made between the two forms of expenditure. The Labour Government are perfectly happy to have an analysis of spending divided into current and capital, because we believe that a real distinction can be made between the two. We are not hiding behind an artificial distinction, but being open and transparent about our spending in those areas.

451
The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) raised the subject of the euro and the estimates and projections that have been built into forecasts in the light of our possible entry into the single currency. It is interesting that Conservative Members find it difficult to speak in any debate on the economy without bringing us back to the euro and what they see as its disadvantages.
Let me make the Government's position clear: we shall decide whether or not to join the euro based on whether that is in the national interest, and subject to a vote of the British people. That is not the policy that the Conservatives have adopted, of ruling out entry for 10 years because of political dogma and in an effort to paper over the cracks in the Conservative party. That is not our approach. We shall decide in the national interest whether or not the euro is appropriate for the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) spoke for the Liberal Democrats. I accept the importance of transparency and openness and the code seeks to achieve those aims. It is especially important that we move to resource accounting and budgeting, and we intend to do so. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that public service agreements and the targets that they include will be a means by which the Government are judged on whether the new money that we are committing to crucial areas, such as hospitals and schools, is valued and brings something extra in terms of improving standards and raising the quality of provision. The agreements will be made public and Parliament and the public will be able to judge how well we deliver those ambitious but challenging targets.
This evening's short debate has revealed that, if there is a black hole, as the right hon. Member for Wells says that there is, it is a black hole in Conservative thinking on the economy. I regret that this evening has witnessed yet another attempt to talk down our economy and a failure to recognise its underlying strengths. There are now 400,000 more people in jobs than there were on 1 May last year and inflation is at its target of 2.5 per cent. Under the Labour Government, there will be no going back to the days of boom and bust. When the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was a Treasury Minister, interest rates were at 15 per cent., inflation was at 10 per cent. and more than 1 million jobs were lost. We shall not turn back the clocks to those days. The code for fiscal stability will assist the Government in steering a course of stability for our economy, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Code for Fiscal Stability, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  POLICE
  That the draft Police Act 1997 (Notification of Authorisations etc.) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 19th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  POLICE
  That the draft Police Act 1997 (Authorisation of Action in Respect of Property) (Code of Practice) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 19th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  PRISONS
  That the draft Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 17th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  Question agreed to.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet:—
(1) on Monday 18th January at half-past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;
(2) on Monday 1st February at half-past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;
(3) on Monday 8th March at half-past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee; and
(4) on Monday 22nd March at half-past Ten o'clock at New Parliament House, Edinburgh, to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee—[Jane Kennedy.]
Question agreed to.

PETITION

  School Closures (Borehamwood)
  11.55 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I wish to present a petition from my constituents concerning the future of education in Borehamwood. This petition has attracted more than 2,000 signatures. It states:
  Petition of Save Our Schools Association
  Declares that we are opposed to the closure of five schools in Borehamwood in the County of Hertfordshire as proposed by the Education Committee of Hertfordshire County Council.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to reject the proposed closure of these schools and demand that Hertfordshire County Council utilise the facilities and sound education that these five schools currently offer to the children of our town.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Speed Cameras
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
11.56 pm
Mr. David Kidney: This has been an impressive week for the parliamentary deliberation of transport policy. I participated in Monday's debate on the Water Industry Bill but, sadly, we did not discuss the subject of water-borne transport. However, things looked up for transport on Tuesday when the main debate concerned the Road Traffic (NHS) Charges Bill and the Adjournment debate was about rail fares. The first debate today addressed the issue of road traffic reduction and the last debate is about the funding of speed cameras.
It has also been a good week for considering transport policy outside the Chamber. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister published his consultation document on road, use charges and workplace car park charges, and today, the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs considered the Government's integrated transport policy. By coincidence, one of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The assistant chief constable of Cleveland, Mr. Richard Brunstrom, gave evidence about the funding of speed cameras.
I aim to deliver two basic messages to the House and to the Minister who will respond to the debate. First, speed cameras contribute significantly to road safety; and, secondly, we cannot achieve the optimal coverage of road routes without more secure funding for speed cameras. I hope that, when the Minister responds to the debate, he will confirm the accuracy of the report that appeared in today's edition of the Evening Standard that the Home Office is convinced of the benefits of additional funding for speed cameras on Britain's roads.
In 1987, a previous Government set a target to achieve a one third reduction in road casualties by 2000. The House now awaits the Government's announcement in this Parliament of new national targets for road casualty reduction beyond 2000. In addition, we understand that the Government will soon issue a road safety strategy. I ask the Minister to confirm when we might expect those new targets and the Government's new road safety strategy. It is difficult to imagine that those documents will not contain some substantial news about speed cameras and the part that they will play in driving down the number of road casualties in this country. Indeed, speed cameras have a proven record of reducing road casualties.
In Staffordshire, where my constituency lies, in the three years since cameras were installed on the first 12 sites, there has been a dramatic reduction in crashes causing personal injury. In the three years before the cameras were installed, there were 599 accidents, compared with 472 accidents after their installation. That represents a 21 per cent. reduction. Applying the law of averages to the figures for the period before the cameras were installed, the reduction represents a saving of 10 lives on the road, 29 serious injuries in road crashes and 88 slight injuries. The financial benefit to the community from the subsequent lack of need for attention at sites by the police and the fire service and for health treatment of people injured in accidents is estimated to total £8 million.
454
It is significant that the severity of the crashes has decreased. Incidents of fatal and serious injury have fallen by 49 per cent. from 79 to 40. That reflects the slower speed of traffic at those sites.
What is the national picture? Where better to look for news on the success of speed cameras than in a report commissioned by the Home Office? In 1995, the Home Office commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of speed cameras and traffic lights from Andrew Hook, Jim Knox and David Portas. The report, which was issued in 1996, revealed that, in areas where speed cameras were used, accidents fell by 28 per cent. and speeds were reduced by an average of 4.2 mph. The fixed cost for installing cameras was £12,500 each and the average recurring expenditure for each camera was £8,500 per year.
The report went on to describe the wider benefits of the cameras, such as the release of police officers from speed enforcement duties for other useful duties and the detection not only of speeding offences but other crimes, including serious crimes. There is also anecdotal evidence that people in the local communities along the routes where the cameras are installed feel safer.
In addition to those benefits, ACPO—which has given evidence today to the Select Committee—estimates that there is a financial saving to the community of £8 billion a year from the wider use of speed cameras. ACPO argues that that translates into substantial savings in NHS treatment, which results in lower waiting lists. That is truly an example of the joined-up thinking in which the Government are interested.
On funding, the conclusion of the cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the Home Office said:
"The cost benefit analysis demonstrated that the use of … speed cameras generated substantial net benefits. It was also shown that the 'pay back' period for this technology was fairly short and that implementation has led to a reduction in the number of road traffic accidents at camera sites."
In Staffordshire, a good example of that is the good partnership working arrangements between the county council's highway authority and Staffordshire police, who are the enforcing agency. Both contribute to the costs of the speed cameras. That means that council tax payers are paying for the speed cameras. The budgets of the council and the police authority are under pressure. That is not unique to Staffordshire; it is typical of what is happening around the country. Staffordshire has identified further sites that would benefit from the installation of speed cameras by potentially reducing road casualties, but the limited funds restrain its ability to install the cameras to make the savings in road casualties. In the meantime, all the fines collected from speeding motorists go directly to the Treasury; none of the money goes towards the cost of installing and maintaining the speed cameras themselves.
How much is the income from fines? About 250,000 people face speeding fines each year, and a fixed penalty is £40. If a quarter of a million people pay £40, the fine income is £10 million. However, some people go to court because their speeding is so serious that a fixed penalty is not appropriate. The average court fine is a little over £100, so each year the income from fines must be well above £10 million. The Evening Standard report gives a figure of £17 million.
A little-noticed fact about the speeders who go to court and face a fine is that the magistrates add to the fine an award of costs that the motorists must also pay. Those

455
costs are for the administration of bringing the case before the magistrates court, so there is nothing new in asking those who offend to pay administration costs in addition to the penalty. Might it not be a neat solution, as some police and councils argue, if the speeder were charged an administration fee in addition to the fine? I strongly agree with that approach.
I understand that the Government have been reviewing the funding of speed cameras for some time. Has the Minister any news of when an announcement might be expected? Some argue that the administration charge that I mentioned could be said to be an extra levy or another tax on motorists. That was certainly the approach taken in an article in The Sunday Telegraph last week. My response to that—perhaps the Minister will agree—is that that would certainly not be the case if best practice were strictly enforced.
I take best practice to mean that the amount of the administration fee is transparently all that is required to cover the administration costs but, more important, that the sites selected for the placing of speed cameras are selected by reference to criteria that relate exclusively to road casualty reduction and also that, when the radars are set for the cameras, they are set within strictly defined parameters. The cost-benefit analysis to which I have referred also mentions that point.
The report's conclusion states:
"The study also generated a number of good practice guidelines which are presented in the main report. These suggest that the level of benefit derived from the use of cameras was linked to the manner in which they are deployed."
In other words, following best practice is the right thing to do, in terms not only of effectiveness in use but of not claiming extra money from people, over and above the penalty.
In Staffordshire, best practice is underwritten by the fact that the police and the council have signed a service level agreement, which includes criteria such as how the sites for the road cameras are selected. In this way, the public are reassured that the only priority is road safety.
I recently visited the Staffordshire traffic police headquarters, which is in my constituency. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication of the workers—police officers and civilians—who detect and enforce the payment of fines by those who exceed speed limits. They, like others across the country, are working to make our roads safer, but will the Minister outline the Government's policy to make sure that they all have the right tools to do their job effectively.
12.9 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The House owes my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) a debt of gratitude for bringing this matter before it. He has shown unusual prescience—not that he does not normally show prescience—in that, in view of several announcements over the past 24 hours by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, an Adjournment debate has seldom been as well timed.
The funding of speed cameras is, of course, an important issue. We are all familiar with the camera logo at the road side. It warns us to slow down. Those with
456
any sense do so, and those without risk a fine. It would be all too easy to forget that the objective of cameras is not to raise revenue through the levying of fines but to reduce injuries and to save lives. I very much welcome the way in which my hon. Friend highlighted at the outset of his speech the importance of the road safety benefits of cameras. He was quite right to set that as a context in which this important debate should be conducted. We are fully committed to ensuring as a Government that we work across Departments—the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury—to improve road safety. We recognise that the use of cameras is one important means of so doing.
The history of the matter is well known. It goes back to the North report in 1988, which recommended that the law should be changed to facilitate the use of cameras for enforcing road traffic law, and the Road Traffic Act 1991, which implemented that report, starting the growth in the use of cameras. They have grown like Topsy ever since. The Act provided enhanced powers for the police to trace the drivers of cars and introduced a new arrangement for improving the accuracy and reliability of cameras, linked with the introduction of a fixed-penalty system, which allows the police to serve fixed penalties on offenders by post. That was the platform on which the growth has occurred.
The good news is that the number of speeding offences detected by cameras has risen from a little more than 32,000 in 1993 to more than 262,000 in 1996–34 per cent. of speeding offences dealt with in that year, the last year for which we in the Home Office have official figures. We expect the figure for 1997 to be significantly higher.
Despite such growth, the issue of funding has always been challenging. Indeed, it was the very first issue raised with me during my recent attendance at the annual conference of the Association of Police Authorities in Blackpool. I am delighted that we are not only debating it, but doing so in the context of a change in our practice.
It was originally envisaged that the police would purchase the cameras and pay their running costs. However, the Home Office circular issued with the 1991 Act envisaged the possibility that highway authorities could, by agreement, share the cost with the police. That is precisely what has happened. Most cameras have been purchased by local highway authorities, and the police pay for the processing of film and administrative costs. That partnership is to be commended. It fits in well with the highway authorities' responsibility for the promotion of road safety.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, however, as the number of cameras and administrative costs have grown, so the financial burden on local authorities and the police service has increased—hence their understandable concern. In light of that, it is not surprising that much of the correspondence that my fellow Ministers and I receive on the subject, as Ministers, suggests that some of the fine income from cameras should be re-invested in its source, to promote road safety. That hypothecation has its attractions. There are some difficulties and challenges too, and in recent months we have been reflecting on those.
We understand the attraction of the scheme. It is a simple way to fund cameras, and there is a certain sense of justice in the notion that offenders should pay for the

457
running of the cameras that detect their offending. It could be suggested that, without offenders, there would be no need for cameras.
However, in government we must take a broader view as to how revenue is raised and the priorities for spending it. The fact that speed cameras can generate fine income for the Treasury does not automatically mean that the money should be re-invested in cameras. Some Government priorities generate no income, and funding must come from somewhere. It is not just a question of following the apparently easy and obvious course. It is necessary to recognise the importance of ensuring good value for money.
Any decision whether to change camera funding arrangements depends on a proper, detailed evaluation of the case. We have been engaged in such an evaluation. The emerging findings are reflected in the announced statements and intentions of my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but we must remember that we are talking about providing additional public funds for cameras over and above that which the police service and highway authorities have already earmarked. That additionality is very important, and it is vital that we get an objective judgment as to the costs and benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred to some of the analysis that we have commissioned on traffic lights and speed cameras, and has cited some results that were published in 1996. When considering the fall in accidents at speed camera sites—some 28 per cent., as my hon. Friend said—the £5.3 million investment made to install cameras, the fivefold return on that amount after one year and the return of more than 25 times that amount after five years, we must recognise that it is not all cash, and that opportunity costs are included. Nevertheless, the figures are impressive, and they show the benefits. They also show some spin-off advantages. Many forces found that the use of cameras released officers from other duties. That is enormously important. Significantly, cameras have produced some useful results in terms of the detection of other crime, not least in the identification of stolen vehicles.
We have seen, objectively, the costs and benefits that can arise from running speed cameras when they are properly deployed and used. The study also identified for the first time the costs that running cameras places on the court system. My hon. Friend, as a solicitor, will be aware of those costs. There are costs of administration and of court time—and from time to time, not least, there are costs on the Crown Prosecution Service.
The funding of speed cameras is of concern not only to the police and local highway authorities; a chain of processes needs to be taken into account. We must ensure that we do not distort the process by using any form of hypothecation that would have that effect. A concern exists that, if a person's income depends directly on the number of motorists that they prosecute, that person will feel pressure to take action against the marginal case.
That would obviously not be right. I am bound to say that, in this country, that risk is a pretty theoretical one, but it is there. There are a number of important interests that we need to balance, not least continued public support for the notion that speed cameras are in place, first and foremost, to reduce casualties on our roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and other right hon. And
458
hon. Members will be aware of the experience in Canada. When it became clear to the public that cameras were being used not primarily for road safety purposes but to generate revenue, public opinion turned against the cameras to the detriment of road safety. That was because they became a political issue. As a result of that, speed cameras were driven off the roads in the aftermath of the electoral process. I do not believe that that would happen in this country but we need to take into account the importance of public support.
We must always remember as well that operational matters are for the chief officer. It is the chief officer—not Ministers or local government officers—who must determine precisely how the cameras are deployed for maximum effect in his area. Deployment will vary properly from force to force. Indeed, some chief officers have made it clear that their interest in the proposals stem from the fact that they do not have the revenues that they would like to place the cameras where they would like. Sometimes conflicting priorities need to be set. Local choices are sometimes difficult.
The Government also have to make choices. There are never enough resources to pursue all our aims to perfection, but we are convinced that the partnership approach is the one that holds out the best solution. We are determined to build on that as we take forward this issue and as we explore the possibilities that are now being opened up by the Treasury's position and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
The criteria that need to be met were summarised in "The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998" of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made the position clear then and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made the point that, in determining what would be a flexible and effective framework within which the controls on the spending of public money operate, there must be strict criteria. He believes that the time is now right to consider how such criteria would work in this area. Indeed, my right hon. Friend makes the point that it is important to ensure that, in each instance, the money raised is appropriate, that it is spent where it is most needed and that it will not distort the operational priorities of the organisations concerned.
The point was made in section 3.4 of "The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998" that Departments will be able to keep some levies and similar taxes, netting them off the departmental expenditure limit where that would further the Government's economic objectives, improve efficiency and not prejudice spending plans and priorities. It is important that there should be safeguards. Safeguards would ensure that some income from fines might also be netted off the departmental expenditure limit where that would assist in fighting crime. We are anxious to ensure that those criteria are developed along the lines announced by the Treasury today. They represent a significant departure from previous policy and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, who raised these matters at such a timely stage, will find the development most encouraging.
There is still some way to go. We still need to ensure that we can meet and readily identify the costs of enforcement and apportion them without undue bureaucracy. We still need to ensure that we get the inter-departmental and inter-agency agreement in place.

459
We still need also to identify the savings that we can achieve through change and ensure that adequate efficiency arrangements are in place to deliver those changes in a way that does not impose additional costs. Those costs, where they exist, will need to be properly controlled, and we need to keep efficiency under regular review.
We are working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Lord Chancellor's Department on carrying the issue forward.
460
We will make proposals to the Treasury in due course, and the Chief Secretary has indicated his willingness to agree such proposals if they meet his criteria. I have no doubt that, in due course, in the spirit of partnership and co-operation that I have outlined, we will be able to meet the objectives which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has so ably shown he shares and which are so much in the interests of his constituents and of the people of our country in general.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve midnight.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Funding
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to announce who will chair the independent review panel considering BBC funding. [62949]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: I expect to announce the chairman and members of the licence fee review panel shortly.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he intends to take to encourage visitors to the UK to visit parts of the country outside London. [62961]

  Janet Anderson
  The British Tourist Authority recently opened the new Britain Visitor Centre in London. The new Centre, which is a partnership between the BTA and the tourist boards of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, aims to encourage visitors to London to travel more widely throughout the UK. This year we are providing a further £1.5 million to the London Tourist Board to support its Focus London campaign, which promotes London as a gateway to the rest of Britain. Our new tourism strategy, which will be published early next year, will set out in detail our plans for spreading the benefits of tourism throughout the country and throughout society.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to copyright the name of the UK Sports Institute. [62700]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind registration of a trademark rather than copyright. Action is in hand through the United Kingdom Sports Council to register as a trademark the names 'UK Sports Institute', 'United Kingdom Sports Institute' and 'UKSI' with the Trademarks Registry. A hearing before the Trademarks Examiner was attended by the UK Sports Council's legal advisers on 24 November as a forerunner to the process of formalising the submission of evidence for registration in the form of a Statutory Declaration.

  A licence agreement has also been prepared between the Department, the UK Sports Council and Phoenix Sports Ltd. (the Sheffield bid team) for use of the trademark 'UK Sports Institute' and other similar marks during the period prior to registration of the trademark.

  Creative Industries
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many representatives there are on the Creative Industries Task Group and Film Policy Review who have a background in the technical side of their industry. [61425]

  Janet Anderson
  Industry members of the Creative Industries Task Force were invited to participate on the basis of their expertise and experience and do not represent particular industries or aspects of industry. However, Paul Smith has a technical background in fashion.

  Members of the Film Policy Review Action Committee were chosen for their knowledge and experience of the film industry as a whole. Several have direct experience of technical aspects of the industry.

DEFENCE

  Navy (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the numbers of(a) divorces and (b) applications for premature voluntary retirement of Royal Naval personnel were during each of the last 10 years. [62936]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department does not hold statistics on divorces of service personnel.

  The number of applications for premature voluntary release (PVR) by members of the Royal Naval Service from 1988–89 to 1997–98 were:

  Financial year

  Applications

  1988–89

  3,788

  1989–90

  4,647

  1990–91

  3,470

  1991–92

  2,140

  1992–93

  1,667

  1993–94

  1,396

  1994–95

  1,691

  1995–96

  2,639

  1996–97

  2,086

  1997–98

  2,019

  Notes:

  1. Royal Naval Service includes Royal Marines and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service.

  2. PVR applications are recorded against the date they were input to the computer database.

  Otterburn Range
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if munitions containing depleted uranium are authorised to be fired on the Otterburn range, Northumberland. [63034]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Munitions containing depleted uranium have not been and are not fired on the ranges at Otterburn.

  Helicopter Crash (South China Sea)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance was offered by(a) Singapore rescue helicopters and (b) the Malaysian Government, following

  191
  the crash of a British military helicopter in the South China Sea off the east coast of Malaysia; and if he will make a statement. [62079]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: A Lynx helicopter, operating from HMS Grafton, crashed during a bilateral exercise with the Singapore Navy on 23 September this year. Following the crash, a Singaporean naval vessel rescued the pilot after he had spent about an hour in the sea. Other Singaporean ships and aircraft continued to search for the second crew member until the decision was taken to call off the rescue.

  Malaysia was not involved in the exercise and was therefore not in a position to offer immediate help. Two Malaysian ships did, however, offer assistance later; but by then the wreck of the helicopter had been located and so it was not necessary to accept the offer.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to publish the interim epidemiological reports relating to Gulf War Syndrome sufferers. [62956]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The MOD is funding two epidemiological studies into the health of UK Gulf veterans. One study, being conducted by a team from Manchester University led by Professor Nicola Cherry, aims to determine whether Gulf veterans are experiencing greater ill-health than Service personnel who did not take part in the conflict and to identify possible exposures and predisposing factors associated with any distinctive pattern of symptoms which may be found. It will also investigate whether there is an increased incidence of mortality or cancer amongst Gulf veterans. Initial results from this study are expected to emerge in the first part of next year.

  The other study, being conducted by a team from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine led by Dr. Patricia Doyle, will examine the reproductive health of Gulf veterans and the health of their children. Initial results from this study are not expected until the end of 1999.

  Initial results from a US-funded study by a team from Kings College, London, led by Professors Simon Wessely and Anthony David, are expected to become available at around the turn of the year.

  All three research teams are working on an independent basis and therefore the publication of their results is a matter for them and not for my Department.

  NATO
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the allegation that secrets of where NATO were prepared to strike during the recent crisis in Kosovo were passed to the Serbs; and what assessment he has made of the implications for UK forces. [62096]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There have been recent reports of a possible breach of security involving Major Bunel, a French military officer working at NATO headquarters. This and any other alleged breaches of NATO or national security regulations are matters for the security authorities concerned. In the Bunel case, the French Minister of 192
  Defence has stated publicly that Major Bunel had not had access to detailed planning, and preparations for NATO military action had therefore not been compromised. This case had no direct implications for UK forces.

  Oman
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the reports alleging corruption in the 1970s involving members of Her Majesty's Forces in Oman; and if he will make a statement. [62296]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to allegations that appeared in a newspaper article and a book recently of corruption in the Special Air Services (SAS) Regiment during the Dhofar Campaign in the early 1970s. The events in question took place almost 25 years ago and official records on the matter are incomplete. However, I understand that the Regiment dealt with the matter at the time and that disciplinary action, where appropriate, was taken.

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his e-mail address. [62565]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  An e-mail address at which Ministers in this Department may be contacted will be set up shortly.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the percentage changes in(a) standard spending assessments and (b) revenue support grants for (i) shire counties and (ii) shire districts between the settlement for 1998–99 and the proposals for 1999–2000, ranked and numbered in descending order; [63074]

  (2) if he will list for 1999–2000 the proposed (a) revenue support grants and (b) standard spending assessments for (i) district councils and (ii) shire counties as a sum per head of their populations, ranked and numbered in descending order. [63073]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information requested has been placed in the library.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the real terms percentage difference is between the SSAs for North Somerset Council for 1998–99 and 1999–2000. [63069]

  Ms Armstrong
  The real terms percentage difference between the SSAs for North Somerset Council for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is 1.6 per cent. i.e. 4.1 per cent. deflated by the GDP deflator.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amount, per capita, is allotted in external support grants for 1998–99 and 1999–2000(a) as a national average and (b) for North Somerset Council. [63071]
  193
  Ms Armstrong
  The two main external support grants covering services provided by unitary authorities are redistributed national non-domestic rates (NNDR) and revenue support grant (RSG). The table shows the per capita amounts for 1998–99 for England and for North Somerset, and the provisional amounts for 1999–2000.

  £

  1998–99

  Provisional 1999–2000

  England

  North Somerset

  England

  North Somerset

  NNDR

  225/hd

  236/hd

  276/hd

  255/hd

  RSG

  397/hd

  240/hd

  403/hd

  234/hd

  Total

  652/hd

  475/hd

  680/hd

  489/hd

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the real terms difference between the education spending in 1998–99 by North Somerset Council and the Education SSA for the same authority in 1999–2000 is, expressed as(a) cash and (b) a percentage. [63070]

  Ms Armstrong
  The 1999–2000 Education SSA (Expressed at 1998–99 prices) for North Somerset Council was £4.957 million (7.0 per cent.) less than the 1998–99 budgeted Net Revenue Expenditure. The Net Revenue Expenditure was £6.705 million (10.4 per cent.) more than the 1998–99 SSA. The actual SSAs and NRE used are shown.

  1998–99 SSA for Education: £64.601m

  1998–99 NRE1for Education: £71.306m

  1999–2000 SSA for Education (adjusted using the GDP deflator to 1998–99 prices): £66.349m.

  1 Includes an apportionment of Capital Expenditure charged to Revenue Account but excludes specific and special grants.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the 1999–2000 SSA for North Somerset Council would be if the real terms percentage increase were the same as the national average. [63068]

  Ms Armstrong
  Applying the national average real terms percentage increase to the 1998–99 SSA for North Somerset would give £133.853 million.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority, the 1999–2000 standard spending assessment(a) per five to 10 year old pupil and (b)per 11 to 15 year old pupil. [62887]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: A table showing the Primary Education SSA per pupil aged 5 to 10 and the Secondary Education SSA per pupil aged 11 to 15 for each local education authority has been placed in the library.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he takes to ensure that those qualifying as driving instructors will be equipped in most cases to meet the standards later operating in their check-tests; and if he will introduce an appeals system for those who fail their check-tests. [63072]
  194
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The standards established when passing the qualifying examinations are the same as those needed subsequently to pass the periodic check-tests. Advice and assistance is available to instructors at any time from local supervising examiners. Also, the system of check-tests is operated in an educational rather than a punitive way. Following an unsatisfactory check-test, an examiner will offer to discuss performance, so the instructor can consider what action is needed, possibly involving re-training, before a further check-test takes place. We have no plans currently to introduce an appeals system to review the examiner's judgment where a check-test is failed. It would be difficult for an independent adjudicator to pass judgment on a text without having been present.

  The Registrar seeks to remove the instructor's certificate only after a third consecutive unsatisfactory performance. A statutory mechanism already does exist to protect any instructor who wishes to appeal against the Registrar's decision to take removal action.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many driving instructors who have been removed from registration during the last four years following check-test failures have then sought re-qualification by taking the appropriate examinations; how many of these have been successful; and if he will make a statement. [63075]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the last four years, 254 instructors have been removed from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors following check-test failure. But information about how many have subsequently sought re-qualification, and how many have been successful, is not held in a retrievable form.

  Family Dwellings
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government will appoint a commission to re-examine standards for, and design of, family dwellings. [62283]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have no plans to do so. The Building Regulations set minimum standards for the health and safety of people in and around dwellings, as well as making requirements for energy efficiency and access for disabled people. Housing warranty providers also set their own standards over and above the requirements of the Building Regulations.

  In addition, my Department has commissioned a set of detailed Housing Quality Indicators, which can be used to evaluate all aspects of housing design, from internal and external layout and space standards to energy efficiency and sustainable construction. The Indicators will be published early in the New Year, and the Housing Corporation has recommended their use by all Registered Social Landlords.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the criteria used by the Highways Agency to determine the basis of need for a new motorway service area to be built. [62902]
  195
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Decisions on the need for new motorway service areas (MSAs) are not matters for the Highways Agency. Its role is to advise on the impact of MSA proposals on the operation and safety of the motorway and trunk road network. Need is a matter for planning authorities to consider in the light of that and other relative advice. Guidance on the criteria to be used in determining need issues was contained in my answer of 31 July 1998,Official Report, columns 611–12. Copies are in the House Libraries.

  Nuclear Fuel Transport (Irish Sea)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) what representations he has received concerning the 24 October 1998 incident involving the 'Pacific Crane' vessel in the Irish Sea, (b) what assessment he has made of the environmental issues raised and (c) what (i) correspondence and (ii) meetings have taken place with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. since the incident; and if he will make a statement. [61969]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 47.

  Waste Strategy
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he is taking on the responses to the consultation paper on the new waste strategy for England and Wales "Less Waste: more value". [63604]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department is examining all the comments that were made, both by individuals and by organisations in response to "Less waste: more value". Where further elucidation seems necessary, they are discussing points with a number of experts selected on a personal basis, as well as continuing to hold regular liaison and ad hoc meetings with representative bodies from local government, the community sector and industry. The aim of this consultation is to produce a draft waste strategy next spring for further consultation with a view to adopting a final strategy before the end of 1999.

  Fuel Duty Rebates
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages of introducing necessary user rebates in respect of fuel duties paid by the disabled and their carers. [61796]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have no plans to introduce a fuel duty rebate for disabled motorists but they will continue to take account of the impact of the fuel duty escalator on these and other essential car users. Whilst disabled motorists often need the use of a car, they can still reduce their fuel consumption and, in some cases, will be able to choose significantly more fuel-efficient vehicles which manufacturers are committed to introducing to the market. Disability Living Allowance, which will rise in line with inflation, also provides a contribution towards the extra costs of disability, and is awarded on the basis of the mobility as well as care needs of disabled people. In addition, vehicles owned by many disabled drivers are exempt from Vehicle Excise Duty.

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his e-mail address. [62556]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and all other Ministers in this Department, can currently be contacted via the Department's Web site—WWW.DETR.GOV.UK. All members of the Department, including my right hon. Friend, will have individual e-mail addresses from March next year.

  Non-metallic Storage Vessels
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Health and Safety Executive's findings over the past 10 years on the failures of non-metallic storage vessels including plastic-lined GRP storage vessels, together with relevant information on recorded failures which is contained in the HSE database of investigated incidents; and if he will make a statement. [62303]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: A research report by the Health and Safety Laboratory of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has reviewed all the failures of non-metallic vessels reported to HSE during the period 1986–1996. The report discloses that early experience with GRP storage vessels was disappointing due to poor design, poor or inadequate installation, lack of suitable testing and inspection techniques, poor fabrication or materials specification, environmental stress cracking, and user-abuse. A number of key recommendations aimed at addressing these problems are contained in the report and HSE is reviewing its guidance in the light of these. In total, the report reviews a total of 59 incidents, 7 of which involved plastic-lined GRP storage vessels. Arrangements are in hand for a copy of the report to be placed in the Commons Library.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how and when he will consult rural communities and their representative bodies in accordance with section 2(3) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 before appointing members to the RDA boards. [63092]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government started the appointments process while the legislation was before Parliament, in order to be in a position to take decision on appointments to the RDA boards soon after the commencement of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.

  Earlier this year we advertised in the national press for applications direct from individuals and also consulted a wide range of bodies asking them to nominate people whom they thought were suitable for board membership. These groups included many who represent the interests of rural communities.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62841]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following Special Advisers are employed in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions:Joe Irvin full-time special adviser. He advises on all areas for which the DPM is responsible.
  Joan Hammell full-time special adviser. She also assists the DPM.
  Paul Hackett, part-time special adviser. Advises on regional issues.

  Name

  Company

  Current responsibilities

  A. Carter

  Boots the Chemist Ltd.

  Contributing to planning and regeneration issues, including work on sustainable communities, the New Deal for Communities, and the revision of planning guidance

  M. Coe

  Unilever

  Advising on promoting greater environmental awareness by business

  B. Everett

  Bellway Urban Renewal

  Secretariat of the Urban Task Force

  J. Faragher

  CRE Group Ltd.

  Expert adviser in the European Commission on environmental management systems and the development of the ecomanagement and audit scheme

  C. Fulford

  KPMG

  Secretariat of the Urban Task Force

  J. Hall

  Institute for Fiscal Studies

  Providing advice on industrial, regional and labour market issues

  M. Salter

  OPM

  Secretariat of the Urban Task Force

  G. Pearce

  Bank of Scotland

  Assisting with the restructuring arrangements for Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  A. Stacey

  ABROS

  Secretariat of the Urban Task Force

  S. Tindale

  IPPR

  Attached to the Sustainable Development Unit providing advice on environmental issues

  A. Wain

  Kvaerner Construction

  Implementation of the recommendations of Sir John Egan's Construction Task Force Report "Rethinking Construction"

  Railtrack
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the transparency of the information provided by Railtrack regarding levels of capital investment and spending on maintenance; and if he will make a statement. [62601]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under Condition 7 of its Network Licence, Railtrack is required to publish an annual Network Management Statement (NMS), setting out its plans for the maintenance, renewal and development of the rail network for a ten year period, with greater detail for the first three years of the programme. The form of the NMS, and the period it covers, has to be approved by the Rail Regulator.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evidence he has obtained that contractors from other countries dump asbestos waste in Britain. [62636]

  Mr. Meacher
  The import of asbestos waste into Great Britain is controlled by the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992. Under these Regulations, the import of
  198
  Darren Murphy part-time special adviser. Advises on local government and housing.
  Richard Olszewski. Special adviser on transport issues.

  Special Advisers are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements. It is not appropriate to give details about particular individual's level of security clearance.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people in his Department are currently on secondment from private companies; and if he will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62831]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are currently 11 people on secondment to the Department from private companies. They are listed:

  amphibole (largely brown or blue) asbestos waste is prohibited. Proposals from the Health and Safety Commission, currently under consultation, will extend this prohibition to include the import of chrysotile (white) asbestos waste.

  While derogations from the Regulations to allow imports may be sought, a certificate of exemption would be granted only in exceptional circumstances and be subject to stringent conditions. No certificates of exemption have so far been issued for the import of asbestos from another country into Great Britain.

  There is no evidence of any illegal imports of asbestos waste into Great Britain.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Petrol Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason the pricing behaviour of petrol retailers on motorways was not included in the report into the retail petrol industry by the Director General of Fair Trading published on 18 May; and if he will make a statement. [62404]
  199
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: The content of the report is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I am asking him to reply to the hon. Member directly.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to refuse sponsorship for the New Millennium Experience Company from companies which are in receipt of Government grants. [61991]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on 16 November 1998, Official Report, columns 421–22.

  Sombrero Island
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the application made to use the island of Sombrero, near Anguilla, as a rocket launch site; what assessment he has made of the likely effect on wildlife on the island; and if he will make a statement. [62097]

  Mr. Battle
  Beal Aerospace, an American company, wish to develop Sombrero Island as a satellite launch site, and have already negotiated with the Government of Anguilla an option to lease Sombrero. The Anguillan Government have negotiated conditions on the lease which include their being satisfied on the likely impact upon the environment. Beal have submitted an Environmental Impact Report on the project to the Anguillan and UK Governments.

  It will be for the Anguillan Government to decide whether or not to give permission to Beal Aerospace to develop the island. The UK's role is to give whatever advice and assistance is necessary to help the Government of Anguilla make that decision. We anticipate this assistance to include providing an evaluation of the Environmental Impact Report. In the interests of transparency and open debate, the UK Government are making copies of the Environmental Impact Report available to the UK Non-Governmental Organisations who have expressed an interest. Over the next few weeks officials will be discussing with the Government of Anguilla the detailed plans for assisting them with the planning application.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62832]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have two special advisers, Benjamin Wegg-Prosser and Dan Cony. They advise me and my colleagues on the full range of issues for which we are responsible.
  200
  Special Advisers are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements. It is not appropriate to give details about particular individuals' level of security clearance.

  Indonesia (Hawk Aircraft)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the purchase price for 24 Hawk aircraft(a) remains to be repaid by the Indonesian Government and (b) has subsequently been included in the rescheduling of Indonesia's international debts. [62971]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Principal loan repayments remaining to be paid by the Indonesian Government equate with 40 per cent. of the original purchase price. The ECGD supported loan was for 80 per cent. of the purchase price.

  (b) Principal instalments totalling 167 million US Dollars have been included in the rescheduling.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of applications for export licences were processed by his Department within 20 days for the period 13 July to date. [61929]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation (ECO) of DTI measures export licence processing performance against two aims:to provide a substantive response to an application within 20 working days of receipt for applications that need to be circulated to other Government Departments according to their policy requirements ("circulated cases")
  to provide such a response within 10 working days of receipt of applications that are dealt with by the DTI itself ("non-circulated cases").

  In each case, full documentation in support of the application must be provided by the applicant at the outset for these targets to apply.

  ECO management data on the processing of licence applications is compiled on the basis of four-week periods. The accumulated data for the periods beginning 27 June 1998 to 13 November 1998 showed that to the nearest percentage point 45 per cent. of circulated cases were finalised within 20 working days and 82 per cent. of non-circulated cases were finalised within 10 working days.

  This information was taken from ECO's management data, which are compiled to monitor processing of Standard Individual Export Licences. The performance measures do not apply to applications for Open Individual Export Licences (due to wide variations between goods and country coverage of such licences), to licences covering Iran or to exports which are subject to control solely because of United Nations Sanctions.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licence applications were refused by the Export Control Organisation during each of the four week periods used by his Department from 29 May to date. [61931]
  201
  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the numbers of applications for Standard Individual Export Licences refused in full for each period are as follows:

  Period

  Standard individual export licenses

  30 May 1998–26 June 1998

  9

  27 June 1998–24 July 1998

  4

  25 July 1998–21 August 1998

  10

  22 August 1998–18 September 1998

  10

  19 September 1998–16 October 1998

  10

  17 October 1998–13 November 1998

  9

  No Open Individual Export Licences were refused in full during the period.

  This information should be considered in the light of my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

HEALTH

  Investing in Dentistry
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated to Investing in Dentistry up to 30 November; which health authority areas have applied for such funds to date; how much each has bid for; and how many applications have been successful in each health authority area. [62103]

  Mr. Milburn
  Since the Investing in Dentistry initiative was announced in September last year, grants totalling £6,843,582 have been approved. The table gives details of the health authorities who submitted Investing in Dentistry funding requests to the Secretary of State in 1997–98 and 1998–99 to date, the gross amount of funding requested, and the number of applications approved.

  Investing in dentistry requests by Health Authority

  £

  Health Authority

  Number of applications approved

  Gross funding requested

  Avon

  4

  428,100

  Barnet

  —

  214,900

  Barnsley

  3

  124,200

  Bedfordshire

  2

  30,000

  Berkshire

  5

  175,000

  Bexley and Greenwich

  —

  396,000

  Birmingham

  1

  76,700

  Bradford

  1

  354,300

  Bury and Rochdale

  —

  33,100

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  —

  240,664

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  4

  396,400

  City and East London

  5

  290,800

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  7

  990,600

  County Durham

  3

  332,905

  Coventry

  —

  49,000

  Doncaster

  2

  119,400

  Dorset

  2

  101,597

  Dudley

  —

  39,500

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  6

  155,000

  202

  Investing in dentistry requests by Health Authority

  £

  Health Authority

  Number of applications approved

  Gross funding requested

  East Kent

  —

  518,400

  East Lancashire

  1

  605,600

  East Norfolk

  3

  453,800

  East Riding

  6

  423,000

  East Sussex

  —

  60,000

  Enfield and Haringay

  —

  197,000

  Gloucestershire

  10

  603,500

  Herefordshire

  2

  60,000

  Isle of Wight

  2

  165,000

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  —

  267,000

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  2

  207,000

  Leeds

  —

  492,455

  Leicestershire

  2

  162,100

  Lincolnshire

  2

  130,000

  Liverpool

  1

  147,100

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  2

  95,770

  Morecombe Bay

  6

  226,500

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  2

  240,311

  Northamptonshire

  4

  70,000

  North Cheshire

  1

  50,000

  North Cumbria

  5

  309,300

  North Derbyshire

  1

  60,400

  North and East Devon

  7

  295,600

  North Essex

  2

  38,400

  North and Mid Hampshire

  7

  579,900

  North Staffordshire

  6

  276,500

  North West Lancashire

  5

  311,700

  North Yorkshire

  8

  550,900

  North West Anglia

  —

  90,000

  Nottingham

  2

  222,800

  Oxfordshire

  6

  242,000

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  8

  719,400

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  4

  209,700

  Rotherham

  6

  312,700

  Salford and Trafford

  2

  22,200

  Sandwell

  —

  151,000

  St Helens and Knowsley

  3

  162,100

  Shropshire

  7

  412,000

  Somerset

  5

  722,200

  Southern Derbyshire

  1

  116,600

  South Cheshire

  7

  253,500

  South Essex

  1

  45,000

  South Humber

  2

  83,000

  South Lancashire

  1

  187,400

  South Staffordshire

  2

  143,000

  South West Devon

  8

  282,000

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  8

  918,800

  Stockport

  —

  14,000

  Suffolk

  6

  124,000

  Sunderland

  —

  207,620

  Tees

  —

  146,914

  Walsall

  —

  100,500

  Warwickshire

  —

  154,000

  West Hertfordshire

  1

  107,900

  West Kent

  2

  80,200

  West Surrey

  4

  846,850

  West Sussex

  5

  743,600

  Wigan and Bolton

  1

  194,000

  Wiltshire

  14

  1,128,600

  Wirral

  —

  123,000

  Wolverhampton

  1

  132,500

  Worcestershire

  1

  232,000

  240

  21,776,486

  Note:

  1. Gross funding figures have been rounded up to the nearest hundred pounds.

  2. Some gross funding figures may be inflated due to the inclusion of revised or re-submitted applications.

  Aspirin
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the retail price of aspirin of changes in the maximum quantities available over the counter at pharmacies. [62295]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has made no assessment of the impact on the price of aspirin products, this is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading. The Director General of Fair Trading has investigated the pricing of a number of pack sizes of aspirin and paracetamol that were available over the counter before and after the introduction of the new pack sizes. He did not find any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour. The market in analgesics is very competitive and equivalent products are available at a wide variety of prices. The Director General will keep the market for analgesics under review and will investigate any anti-competitive behaviour.

  Health Authority Funding Formula (South-West)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means the funding formula for health authorities in South West England takes account of the number of older people resident in them. [62386]

  Mr. Milburn
  The national funding formula used to inform health authorities' unified allocations includes adjustments to take account of the relative healthcare needs of different age groups. Elderly people require relatively more health care, and the target allocations of health authorities reflect this.

  Bartlet Hospital, Felixstowe
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account he took of the closure of other local health services in considering the proposal to close the Bartlett Hospital in Felixstowe; and what assessment he made of the overall impact of the proposed closures. [62317]

  Mr. Dobson
  I have rejected the proposals to transfer the rehabilitation and recovery services from the Bartlet hospital, Felixstowe to Ipswich hospital until Suffolk Health Authority has undertaken a full and comprehensive review of the implications for the future of the Bartlet hospital. This must clearly take into account other local health services.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will rank by English health authority those areas with the poorest dental health. [62532]

  Mr. Milburn
  The table ranks health authorities in England by decayed, missing or filled teeth of 5-year-old children for the year 1995–96. These results are from a survey co-ordinated by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry. Information for Leicestershire Health Authority is not available.204

  Mean decayed missing or filled teeth by health authority

  Health authority

  Decayed, missing filled teeth

  Rank

  Manchester

  3.41

  1

  Bury and Rochdale

  3.15

  2

  West Pennine

  2.99

  3

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  2.91

  4

  Sunderland

  2.84

  5

  East Lancashire

  2.83

  6

  Wigan and Bolton

  2.76

  7

  Bradford

  2.60

  8

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  2.39

  9

  Morecambe Bay

  2.36

  10

  Camden and Islington

  2.32

  11

  Salford and Trafford

  2.31

  12

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  2.30

  13

  East London and the City

  2.27

  14

  Rotherham

  2.23

  15

  Leeds Healthcare

  2.23

  16

  North West Lancashire

  2.22

  17

  County Durham Health Commission

  2.21

  18

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  2.18

  19

  Wirral

  2.16

  20

  North Cumbria

  2.15

  21

  Wakefield Health Care

  2.15

  22

  Barnet

  2.11

  23

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  2.11

  24

  Tees

  2.11

  25

  South Lancashire

  2.10

  26

  Stockport

  2.08

  27

  Doncaster

  2.08

  28

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  2.05

  29

  Northumberland

  1.95

  30

  Sheffield

  1.94

  31

  East Riding

  1.91

  32

  Brent and Harrow

  1.89

  33

  Liverpool

  1.85

  34

  North Staffordshire

  1.81

  35

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  1.79

  36

  North Cheshire

  1.78

  37

  Sefton

  1.77

  38

  Barnsley

  1.77

  39

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  1.77

  40

  North Yorkshire

  1.77

  41

  North and East Devon

  1.76

  42

  East Norfolk

  1.72

  43

  North Nottinghamshire

  1.69

  44

  South and West Devon

  1.67

  45

  Enfield and Haringey

  1.65

  46

  Berkshire

  1.65

  47

  Herefordshire

  1.64

  48

  Isle of Wight Health Commisison

  1.60

  49

  East and North Hertfordshire

  1.57

  50

  South Humber

  1.56

  51

  Hillingdon

  1.55

  52

  Oxfordshire

  1.51

  53

  Bedfordshire

  1.48

  54

  South Cheshire

  1.48

  55

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1.47

  56

  Northamptonshire

  1.45

  57

  West Kent

  1.43

  58

  Somerset

  1.43

  59

  Shropshire

  1.43

  60

  South Derbyshire

  1.42

  61

  Wolverhampton

  1.41

  62

  Barking and Havering

  1.39

  63

  Wiltshire

  1.39

  64

  Croydon

  1.38

  65

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1.37

  66

  East Surrey

  1.36

  67

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1.35

  68

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1.30

  69

  Buckinghamshire

  1.29

  70

  Nottingham

  1.29

  71

  205

  Mean decayed missing or filled teeth by health authority

  Health authority

  Decayed, missing filled teeth

  Rank

  Bexley and Greenwich

  1.28

  72

  Gloucestershire

  1.28

  73

  Dorset

  1.25

  74

  West Surrey

  1.22

  75

  Coventry

  1.22

  76

  West Hertfordshire

  1.22

  77

  North Derbyshire

  1.21

  78

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  1.19

  79

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  1.19

  80

  Bromley

  1.18

  81

  South Essex

  1.16

  82

  North West Anglia

  1.15

  83

  East Kent

  1.13

  84

  Birmingham

  1.08

  85

  North and Mid Hampshire

  1.03

  86

  Suffolk

  1.00

  87

  West Sussex

  0.97

  88

  Kingston and Richmond

  0.97

  89

  Lincolnshire

  0.97

  90

  Sandwell

  0.95

  91

  Avon

  0.92

  92

  Walsall

  0.92

  93

  North Essex

  0.88

  94

  Warwickshire

  0.84

  95

  Worcestershire

  0.84

  96

  Dudley

  0.81

  97

  South Staffordshire

  0.79

  98

  Solihull

  0.56

  99

  Leicestershire

  n/a

  —

  Source:

  Data from the BASCD co-ordinated 1995–96 National Health Service Dental Epidemiological Programme survey of 5-year-old children

  Dental Nurses
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received in support of changes to the Dentists Act 1984 to allow the statutory registration of dental nurses; and if he will make a statement; [63029]

  (2) how many dental nurses currently employed by the National Health Service have passed the National Certificate examination awarded by the National Examining Board for Dental Nurses; [63030]

  (3) what plans he has to review the operation of the Dentists Act 1984. [63028]

  Mr. Milburn
  The General Dental Council has proposed that it should set up a statutory register of dental nurses, entry to which would be dependent upon the satisfactory completion of an approved training programme. We support this proposal and, in due course, will consider if measures to strengthen the existing regulatory systems of the health care professions, which we plan to include in the forthcoming National Health Service Bill, could be used to make the necessary amendments to the Dentists Act 1984. Information is not held centrally upon numbers of dental nurses, but each year some 2,000 candidates pass the examinations of the National Examining Board for Dental Nurses.

  Secondments
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in his Department are currently 206
  on secondment from private companies; and if he will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62821]

  Ms Jowell
  Central records are held on three such secondments:

  Company

  Current responsibilities

  Lloyd's Bank

  To provide advice on project finance issues involved in taking forward private finance initiative projects at National Health Service trusts

  Pricewaterhouse Coopers

  To provide advice on project finance issues involved in taking forward private finance initiative projects at NHS trusts

  Ward Hathaway Solicitors

  To provide advice on legal issues involved in taking forward private finance initiative projects at NHS trusts

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62838]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are two special advisers in the Department, Mr. Simon Stevens and Mr. Joe McCrea. Special advisers advise on the full range of issues for which Ministers are responsible and are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements.

  Retinal Implants
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is funding into the use of electronic retinal implants for the blind and partially-sighted. [62966]

  Mr. Milburn
  None at present, but the Department and the ophthalmic professions monitor the results of major research and development projects funded from other sources.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the percentage of people smoking in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [62793]

  Ms Jowell
  The information is not available for 1995 and 1997. Available information is as follows:

  Prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged 16 and over, by gender England 1994 and 1996

  Percentage

  1994

  1996

  Men

  28

  28

  Women

  25

  27

  All persons

  26

  28

  Note:

  1. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole figures

  Source:

  Office of National Statistics General Household Survey
  207

  Prevalence of regular cigarette smoking among secondary school children aged 11–15 by gender England 1994 and 1996

  Percentage

  1994

  1996

  Boys

  10

  11

  Girls

  13

  15

  Pupils

  12

  13

  Note:

  1. Regular smokers are pupils who usually smoke at least one cigarette a week

  2. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole figure

  Source:

  ONS Smoking among secondary school children

  Neurological Diseases
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recorded incidence per 1,000 population of(a) motor neurone disease, (b) multiple sclerosis and (c) Alzheimer's disease was at five-year intervals during the last 30 years. [63136]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 7 May 1998,Official Report, column 503.

  Medicines Control Agencies and Medical Devices Agencies
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what future plans there are for the Medicines Control Agency and the Medical Devices Agency. [63429]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department of Health is carrying out a study to identify the longer-term organisational arrangements which will best support the effective regulation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices carried out by the Medicines Control Agency and the Medical Devices Agency respectively. The terms of reference for the study have been placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Appeals Tribunal
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) the number of cases the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal has heard since its inception, (b) how many of these appeals have been successful and (c) how many cases are pending. [61967]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Special Immigration Appeals Commission has so far received four appeals. None of these have yet been heard. They are all subject to Directions hearings to determine how they are to proceed to full hearing.

  Land Registry Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department which of the Land Registry offices his latest accommodation review has revealed as surplus to current requirements; and what action he now proposes to take with regard to them. [62895]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Land Registry's latest accommodation review has revealed that a sub-office (1,269 sq m) of the Gloucester District Land Registry is surplus to current 208
  requirements. The Land Registry is actively marketing the sale of the lease. Since 1990, the Land Registry has reduced its estate by some 43,000 sq m of accommodation, covering 34 sites.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department which Land Registry offices in the North West have sufficient spare capacity in terms of space or people to enable them to take on the work currently conducted by the Lytham Land Registry. [62896]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no Land Registry offices in the North-West which have sufficient spare capacity in terms of space or people to enable them to take on the work currently conducted by the Lytham Land Registry.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what analysis his Department or the Land Registry has undertaken on the future of the Land Registry office in Lytham. [62897]

  Mr. Hoon
  An analysis by the Land Registry on the future of its office in Lytham has concluded that registration activity is projected to increase by up to 20 per cent. over the next five years following recent land registration legislation. Existing accommodation, which is operating at fully capacity, will therefore soon be insufficient to carry out its business.

  The Land Registry intends to redevelop its nearby Warton site to house the registration work generated by the County of Lancashire. The existing Lytham building will cater for work generated by Greater Manchester.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the operational future of the Land Registry office in Lytham(a) in the next 12 months, (b) in the next three years and (c) in the next five years. [62898]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the next 12 months the Land Registry will begin to operate from its Lytham office as the Lytham District Land Registry (dealing with registrations from Greater Manchester) and the Lancashire District Land Registry (dealing with registration from Lancashire)—the latter moving to the new accommodation at nearby Warton on its completion. Over the next five years the two business units will be taking forward partnerships with local authorities to register all of their landholdings. This will bring considerable security and efficiency benefits to local authorities and to the local taxpayer.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he is currently acting on a request from the Treasury to review the property portfolio of office accommodation currently used by the Land Registry. [62899]

  Mr. Hoon
  A review of the property portfolio of office accommodation used by the Land Registry was carried out as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. The review identified some 13,000 sq m of accommodation as surplus to requirements and this has now been disposed of.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the cost of operation per employee of each of the Land Registry offices. [62900]
  209
  Mr. Hoon
  Excluding one-off costs, the costs of operation per employee in 1997–98 of each of the Land Registry's offices were as follows:

  Offices

  £

  Birkenhead

  21,814

  Coventry

  22,047

  Croydon

  27,358

  Durham

  20,372

  Gloucester

  23,968

  Harrow

  27,508

  Hull

  23,274

  Leicester

  22,008

  Lytham

  22,526

  Nottingham

  21,132

  Peterborough

  26,199

  Plymouth

  24,019

  Portsmouth

  26,056

  Stevenage

  23,487

  Swansea

  22,466

  Telford

  23,548

  Tunbridge Wells

  22,583

  Weymouth

  22,664

  York

  26,957

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last assessed the office accommodation requirements for the Land Registry; and if he will make a statement. [62901]

  Mr. Hoon
  The office accommodation requirements for the Land Registry were last assessed as part of its business planning cycle and are shown in the Land Registry's Corporate Plan 1998–2003 and its published Business Plan 1998–99. Both Plans were approved by the Lord Chancellor.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Indonesia
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on assistance given by her Department for elections in Indonesia. [63388]

  Clare Short
  Indonesia is planning to hold Parliamentary Elections next year. Elections that are free, fair and inclusive will be essential in helping restore political and economic stability and in reversing the recent increase in poverty. We shall work towards this end with the United Nations Development Programme, which has been asked to co-ordinate donor assistance. We shall contribute up to £1 million—some of it immediately—linked to satisfactory progress with preparations for the elections.

  Secondments
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people in her Department are currently on secondment from private companies; and if she will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62818]
  210
  Clare Short
  There is currently one staff member from NRI/University of Greenwich seconded to my Department. He is Dr. Guy Poulter filling the position of Senior Natural Resources Adviser (Research) in my Department's London HQ.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Torture
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will(a) list the recommendations made by the UN Committee Against Torture following its examination of the UK Periodic report, (b) indicate what measures he will take in response, (c) place the observations and comments of the Committee in the Library, (d) list NGO submissions to the Committee concerning the UK report and (e) place these submissions in the Library. [61965]

  Mr. Boateng
  The United Nations Committee Against Torture made the following recommendations:

  (a) The closure of detention centres, particularly Castlereagh, at the earliest opportunity.

  (b) The reform of the State Immunity Act 1978, to ensure that its provisions conform to the obligations contained in the Convention.

  (c)The reform of sections 134(4) and (5)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to bring them into conformity with the obligations contained in article 2 of the Convention.

  (d) The abolition of the use of plastic bullet rounds as a means of riot control.

  (e) Reconstruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary so that it more closely represents the cultural realities of Northern Ireland. This should continue to be associated with an extensive programme of re-education for members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, directed at the objectives of the Peace accord and the best methods of modern police practices.

  (f) The Committee finally recommends that, in the case of Senator Pinochet of Chile, the matter be referred to the office of the public prosecutor, with a view to examining the feasibility of and, if appropriate, initiating criminal proceedings in England, in the event that the decision is made not to extradite him. This would satisfy the State Party's obligations under articles 4 to 7 of the Convention and article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.

  The Government will formally respond to the Committee in the United Kingdom's Fourth Periodic Report, which will be due in January 2002.

  A copy of the Committee's conclusions and recommendations is being placed in the Library. NGO submissions were made direct to the United Nations Committee Against Torture. We are asking the Committee for the information requested and I will write to my hon. Friend when we have received a reply.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in each quarter since May 1997, (b) how many requests for such certificates have originated in each sub-division of his Department and (c) how many such certificates have been issued in the course of hearings of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal. [61966]
  211
  Mr. Straw
  The number of Public Interest Immunity certificates signed by me in each quarter since May 1997 is as follows:

  May-July 1997: 0

  August-October 1997: 4

  November 1997-January 1998: 2

  February-April 1998: 2

  May-July 1998: 4

  August-October 1998: 1

  November 1998: 1.

  These figures include any certificates signed by my Ministers.

  Of these 14 certificates, five originated from requests made by the Prison Service and nine originated from requests made by the Security Service.

  Two certificates have been issued in relation to proceedings in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.

  Police Dogs
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new police dogs were taken on by the police in each of the last five years; and what percentage of these dogs were found to be unsuitable for use as working dogs following the training period. [63077]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by whom the dog-training manuals used by police dog units are compiled; and how often they are updated. [63078]

  Mr. Boateng
  The current edition of the Police Dog Training and Care Manual was drawn up by members of the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee on Police Dogs and was issued to all forces in 1996. Earlier this year, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) General Policing Committee's Police Dog Sub-Committee took over the work of the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee, including responsibility for revision of the Manual. The Manual is a standing agenda item at each meeting of the ACPO Police Dog Sub-Committee and amendments are made as and when necessary. Several amendments have been made since it was issued.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were recruited to dog-handling sections in each of the last five years; and how many of these have left following the training period. [63076]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not collected centrally. It is for individual chief constables to decide on the number of officers who are trained in and assigned to dog handling duties.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines have been issued to police dog units responsible for training dogs, since the recent case against four police officers from the Essex Police Dog Section. [63079]
  212
  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that no guidelines have yet been issued to forces, as the officers who were convicted in the Essex case have decided to appeal and the allegations were specific to one force.

  Mrs. Pauline Clare, the Chief Constable of Lancashire, who chairs the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) General Policing Committee's Police Dog Sub-Committee, has, however, been in contact with Essex Police, the RSPCA, the National Canine Defence League, and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary with a view to devising a scheme for inspection of force dog training centres. In the first instance, a pilot scheme is to be initiated within Essex involving two members of the ACPO Police Dog Sub-Committee, a representative of the RSPCA, and a member of the Essex Police Authority. The ACPO Police Dog Sub-Committee will evaluate this pilot scheme in due course.

  Fire Service (Dog Collars)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which fire service authorities are currently equipped with dog collars that administer electric shocks to the animals. [63081]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information is not held centrally, but I am not aware of any such arrangements for dogs used by brigades to assist in fire investigations.

  Rape Cases
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the study he has initiated into the processing of rape cases by the criminal justice system; and when he expects to publish the full report. [63132]

  Mr. Boateng
  The research has been completed and a report is being prepared. We plan to publish the report in the first quarter of 1999.

  Prisons (Drug Offences)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported drug offences have taken place in prisons in England and Wales since 1 January. [62378]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Provisional information for 1998 showing the number of drugs offences by prisoners proved at prison adjudication is given in the table. In addition, 831 visitors to prisoners were arrested for drug related incidents at prisons in England and Wales.

  Number of drugs offences proved at adjudication in prisons in England and Wales, January to September 1998

  Offence

  Number

  Refusal to provide a drug test sample

  326

  Falsifying a drug test sample

  35

  Unauthorised use of controlled drug

  11,902

  Possession of unauthorised drug

  2,402

  Sells/delivers drugs to person

  69

  Total

  14,734

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons from(a) Slovakia and (b) the Czech Republic have been awarded (i) refugee status and (ii) exceptional leave to remain since May 1997; and, of these, how many achieved this status following an appeal. [61683]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  For the period May 1997-October-1998, the number of initial asylum decisions made for nationals of Slovakia was 535. For that same period, the number of initial decisions made for nationals of the Czech Republic was 310. Of these, none of the above nationals was recognised as a refugee. Nor were any Slovak or Czech nationals granted exceptional leave to remain.

  Manually collected records show that six Slovakian nationals were recognised as refugees following allowed appeals. A further two were granted exceptional leave to remain on compassionate grounds, following additional representations made in their cases, after an initial

  Date

  Destination

  Purpose

  Numbers accompanying Minister

  November 1998

  Blackpool

  To attend Association of Police Authorities Conference

  3

  December 1998

  Brussels (return to Blackpool)

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  5

  The average cost for these two additional flights was £1,451.50.

  Campsfield House
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1998,Official Report, column 134, how the contracts relating to Campsfield House detention centre are monitored; what financial penalty has been imposed for failure to comply with the contract; and if he will make a statement. [63090]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The contract is monitored by a Home Office Contract Monitor, Group 4 senior management and an Independent Visiting Committee. Also, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons carries out inspections on all aspects of the management and performance of the contract. The contract provides for payments to be withheld to the extent of the contractor's failure to deliver the services to the required standard. Group 4's performance has been such that it has not been necessary to impose any financial penalty.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will decide whether to issue an authority to proceed in response to the Spanish extradition request for Senator Pinochet. [63335]

  Mr. Straw
  I signed an authority to proceed in respect of Senator Pinochet today. The Spanish request for his extradition will now be considered by the courts. The reasons for my decision were sent to all the parties concerned in a letter from one of my officials as set out:"1. I am writing to inform you that the Secretary of State has today signed an authority to proceed in respect of Senator Pinochet. The authority to proceed and supporting
  214
  decision was taken to refuse them asylum. In the same period, 48 appeals were dismissed and 49 were abandoned or withdrawn.

  In the case of nationals of the Czech Republic, two were recognised as refugees following appeal. A total of 36 appeals were dismissed and 25 were abandoned or withdrawn.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of travel by Ministers in his Department in(a) RAF and (b) privately chartered aircraft borne by his Department (i) between 1 May 1996 and 1 May 1997 and (ii) since 1 May 1997. [60903]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 November 1998, Official Report, columns 733–34, for the period between 2 May 1997 and 30 September 1998. Since that time, the following trips have also been undertaken:
  documentation are being transmitted to Bow St. I am notifying the Deputy Chief Clerk of this decision by fax. I enclose a copy of the authority to proceed for your information.
  2. The Secretary of State is not under an obligation to provide reasons for his decision to sign an authority to proceed. However, in this case, and in the light of the matters raised by the representations, he has agreed to give his reasons at this stage.

  Representations
  3. The Secretary of State received notification, before the House of Lords judgment on 25 November, that he would be receiving representations for and against the issue of an authority to proceed.
  4. Although there is no provision in the Extradition Act ("the Act") for representations at this stage in extradition proceedings, he has taken careful account of these in making his decision; in particular representations made to him by legal representatives of Senator Pinochet, the Spanish Government, the Chilean Government and legal representatives for "the Interveners" before the House of Lords. He also received material from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence.
  5. The decision to issue an Authority to Proceed was taken personally by the Secretary of State.

  Requests from the French and Swiss Governments
  6. The Secretary of State received formal extradition requests for Senator Pinochet from the Spanish Government on 11 November 1998, from the Swiss Government later the same day, and from the French Government on 13 November 1998.
  7. The Secretary of State has considered these requests, and further material made available by the Swiss Government, under section 12(5) of the Act and Article 17 of the European Convention on Extradition ("ECE"). He has given precedence to the Spanish request, and notified the French and Swiss Governments accordingly.
  215
  The Secretary of State's approach to his decision
  8. He has taken his decision under section 7(4) of the Act, which provides:
  (4) On receipt of any such request the Secretary of State may issue an authority to proceed unless it appears to him that an order for the return of the person concerned could not lawfully be made, or would not in fact be made, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
  9. The Secretary of State has taken the approach that if it already appears to him that no order for the return of Senator Pinochet to Spain could lawfully be made, or would in fact be made, then he should not issue an authority to proceed. If those conditions do not exist he has a discretion whether or not to issue an authority to proceed.
  10. He has had regard to the relevant extradition arrangement, namely the ECE. The UK's obligation is to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain consistently with the ECE. That is a consideration to which the Secretary of State gives particular weight.
  11. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has considered the application of the Act to the Spanish request and all the general restrictions on surrender in sections 6 and 12 of the Act.

  Extradition crimes
  12 Section 1 of the Act provides that where, as in the case of Spain, extradition procedures under Part III of the Act are available, a person in the United Kingdom who: "is accused in that state of the commission of an extradition crime" may be arrested and returned to that state in accordance with those procedures.
  13. The Secretary of State considers that Senator Pinochet is accused, in Spain, of offences equivalent to UK offences of attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, torture, conspiracy to torture, hostage taking and conspiracy to take hostages.
  14. Senator Pinochet is also charged, under Spanish law, with genocide, and the CPS advised, on behalf of the Spanish Government, that murder is also disclosed by the request. The Secretary of State does not consider that the contents of the extradition request satisfied the definition of an extradition crime under section 2 of the Act in respect of these offences, and has therefore not included them in the authority to proceed.
  15. The relevant test under the Act was explained by the Lord Chief Justice in the Divisional Court (with whom the other judges agreed) who said: "What is necessary [for the definition of extradition crime in s. 2] is that at the time of the extradition request (rather than at the time of the conduct alleged; emphasis supplied) the offence should be a criminal offence here, …"
  16. The Secretary of State has proceeded on the basis that he is entitled, at this stage of the extradition proceedings against Senator Pinochet, to treat the Spanish request as well-founded as a matter of Spanish law.

  Sovereign or diplomatic immunity
  17. The Secretary of State has also proceeded on the basis that Senator Pinochet does not enjoy any immunity in relation to the offences in question. He has not accepted a representation made on behalf of Senator Pinochet that he should disregard the House of Lords judgment on the grounds of alleged bias on the part of one of the law lords. Nor does it appear to him that Senator Pinochet is entitled to diplomatic immunity or protection as the head of a special mission.

  General restrictions
  18. The Secretary of State has considered all the general restrictions on surrender in sections 6 and 12 of the Act. In particular, he has had regard to:

  Political Offences (section 6(1)(a))
  19. Section 24 of the Act provides that no offence to which section 1 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act applies can be regarded as an offence of a political character. Since Spain is a designated country for the purposes of section 24, the Secretary of State considers that all the offences that are to be
  216
  included in the authority to proceed fall within this provision. In any event it does not appear to him that the offences charged are of a political character.

  Punishment for political opinions (sections 6(1)(c) and (d))
  20. The Secretary of State does not consider that there are good grounds for concluding that the request has been issued for this purpose.

  The passage of time (section 12(2)(a)(ii))
  21. The Secretary of State has not been notified by the Spanish Government that any of the offences for which extradition is sought are time barred from prosecution, and considers that it is reasonable to proceed at this stage on the footing that no relevant time bar appears to apply.
  22. Nor does the Secretary of State consider that the passage of time would render it unjust or oppressive to issue an authority to proceed in this case. It does not appear that Senator Pinochet is unfit to stand trial. The offences for which return has been sought are serious, and in the nature of those for which, domestically, passage of time would not be regarded as restricting prosecution. The case is an accusation case and, ordinarily, the reliability of witnesses' memories may properly be regarded as a matter for the court of prosecution.

  Accusation not made in good faith in the interests of justice (section 12(2)(a)(iii))
  23. The Secretary of State does not believe that there are good grounds for concluding that the request has been issued other than in good faith in the interests of justice.

  The Secretary of State's discretion
  24. The Secretary of State has considered the ambit of his discretion under section 7(4) and his residual general discretion under section 12 of the Act, which would apply in relation to the return of Senator Pinochet were he to be committed by the Bow Street magistrate under section 9 of the Act. Contrary to certain of the representations made to him, he has been advised that the discretion conferred upon him is wide, and he has therefore taken a range of factors into consideration.
  25. A large number of points were raised in representations concerning the Secretary of State's discretion, including aspects of issues that fall to be considered under the general restrictions on return contained in the Act. In particular, the Secretary of State has had regard to the following:

  Humanitarian considerations
  26. Representations were made on behalf of the Senator that his age and health would render it unjust or oppressive to issue an authority to proceed. The Secretary of State has considered these carefully, but concluded that it does not appear that the Senator is unfit to stand trial and concluded that in all the circumstances it would not be unjust or oppressive for him to stand trial in relation to the offences with which he is charged. The Secretary of State also has in mind that this question, among others, can be re-examined in the light of any developments, at the stage when he comes to exercise his final discretion at the end of the extradition process, under section 12 of the Act.

  Pending proceedings in Chile
  27. The Chilean Government argued that Senator Pinochet should be returned to Chile where he could stand trial. However, there is no extradition request from the Chilean Government, which the Secretary of State could consider under section 12(5) of the Act. Moreover, there is no provision of international law which excludes Spain's jurisdiction in this matter. The Secretary of State does not consider the possibility of a trial in Chile to be a factor which outweighs the UK's obligations under the ECE to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain.

  Other factors
  28. The Secretary of State has also considered other factors, under his general discretion, including:

  (i) the possible effect of extradition proceedings on the stability of Chile, and its future democracy; and

  (ii) the possible effect of extradition proceedings on the UK national interest.

  217
  29. He has concluded that the material and representations put before him do not amount to sufficient grounds not to issue an authority to proceed.

  Conclusion
  30. In the event that Senator Pinochet is committed to await the Secretary of State's decision on his return, the Secretary of State will consider the extradition request afresh under section 12 of the Act. At that stage he will be able to take into account any findings in the committal proceedings and any habeas corpus proceedings as well as any further representations which Senator Pinochet may wish to make against return.
  31. If Senator Pinochet decides to apply for leave to move for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision, he reserves the right to expand upon the reasons given in this letter in an affidavit to be sworn by one of his officials."

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the reduction in the cost of state earnings-related pensions arising from(a) the changes contained in legislation basing pension entitlement on lifetime earnings, and related changes and (b) the changes contained in the Pensions Act 1995 in (i) 2000, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2030 and (iv) 2040. [61440]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  Reduction in expenditure arising from the 1986 pensions act and the 1995 Pensions Act

  £ billion

  2001–02

  2010–11

  2030–31

  2040–41

  1986 Pensions Act1

  0.0

  -3.1

  -25.0

  -33.1

  1995 Pensions Act2

  0.0

  -0.9

  -7.5

  -10.6

  Notes:

  1. The figures are approximations based on figures from the Social Security Bill 1986, Report by the Government Actuary on the Financial Effects of the Bill on the National Insurance Fund (Cmnd 9711) assuming an extra 5 million contract out, and the Report by the Government Actuary on the Financial Effects of the Pensions Bill 1994 on the National Insurance Fund (Cmnd 2714).

  2. The figures are based on the Report by the Government Actuary on the Financial Effects of the Pensions Bill 1994 on the National Insurance Fund (Cmnd 2714).

  3. Estimates do not take account of means-tested benefit offsets.

  4. Estimates are in respect of retirement pensioners only.

  5. Figures are 1998–99 benefit rates and are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion.

  Source:

  The Government Actuary's Department.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the policy is of the War Pensions Agency on the seven year rule towards Gulf War veteran claimants. [62959]

  Mr. Timms
  War Pension legislation applies to Gulf War veterans in the same way as to all ex-service personnel claiming a War Pension. Anyone who considers that disablement may be due to service in the Gulf may claim a War Pension at any time after leaving H.M. Forces.

  Where a claim is made within seven years of termination of service there is no onus on the claimant to show that disablement is due to service. Even where a claim is made more than seven years after termination of
  218
  service, it is only necessary for there to be reliable evidence to create a reasonable doubt that disablement might be due to, or aggravated by, service. The benefit of that reasonable doubt is always given to the claimant.

  The Secretary of State may review a decision to reject a claim at any time and on any grounds. Where a claim made within seven years of termination of service is later reviewed, the same conditions of proof which applied at the time the claim was made apply to the review.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Enterprise
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the current limits are on the borrowing powers of Scottish Enterprise. [62954]

  Mr. Dewar
  There is no specified limit on the borrowing powers of Scottish Enterprise. However, Section 25(2) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 limits the aggregate amount of central government funding that Scottish Enterprise can receive including its general external borrowings. The limit is defined as the aggregate amount outstanding (AAO) and was set by the Scottish Enterprise (Aggregate Amount Outstanding) Order 1997 at £3,000 million. The AAO is made up of the following elements (with the level of funding at 31 March 1998 given in parenthesis): sums issued by the Secretary of State or the Treasury, in fulfilment of guarantees (nil); loans guaranteed by Scottish Enterprise or its subsidiaries (£0.3 million); payments from the Secretary of State consisting of grant-in-aid less administrative expenses plus voted loan payments (£2,470 million); and the general external borrowings of Scottish Enterprise and its subsidiaries (£3 million).

  Roads
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many classified roads cross from Scotland to England. [62955]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for the four trunk roads (the Al, A68, A7 and A74 (M)) which cross from Scotland to England. Information on other classified roads is not held centrally.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the sustainable development indicators announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 23 November 1998 will be applied to Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [62786]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government published "Sustainability Counts", a consultation paper on a set of headline indicators of sustainable development, as part of the revision of the Strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom. A definitive set of indicators will be published with the Strategy. In the longer term, it will be for the Scottish Parliament to decide its own approach to sustainable development, which may include the adoption of an appropriate set of indicators.

  Countryside Premium Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications were received by his Department for grants for use in 1999 under the Countryside Premium Scheme; and how many of these applications were successful. [62785]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A total of 953 Countryside Premium Scheme applications were received this year, of which just over 500 are expected to be successful.

PRIME MINISTER

  Duty Free
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions relating to the future of duty-free shopping were instigated by the Government at the Anglo-French Summit in St. Malo on Thursday 3 and Friday 4 December; and if he will make a statement. [62851]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: At the Franco-British Summit in St. Malo the United Kingdom and France both saw a clear case for looking again at the 1991 decision to abolish duty-free sales within the European Union at the end of June 1999; but noted that unanimity would be required to amend the 1991 decision.

TREASURY

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue staff were required to retire before their contractual retirement age in each of the last three years. [62495]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has a contractual retirement age of 60, regardless of gender or grade, and this has been in place for many years. There are a number of retirement schemes, the majority of which are voluntary. If a member of staff was required to retire, it would be under the compulsory retirement or severance schemes, or if medical grounds were involved, under the ill health retirement scheme.

  There have been no compulsory redundancies or severances in the last three financial years, nor any to date in the current year. The number of ill health retirements are detailed in the table.

  Number of ill health retirements of Inland Revenue staff

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  396

  1996–97

  373

  1997–98

  376

  1998–99

  149

  As is the case for all Civil Service ill health retirements, these must be approved by BMI Health Services. It is not possible to distinguish between people who requested to retire on ill health grounds and those who were required to do so. It is probable that those who requested to retire would be in the majority.

  Dog Collars (Customs and Excise)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which sections of HM Customs and Excise are currently using dog collars that administer electric shocks to the animals. [63080]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise does not use collars which administer electric shocks on any of its dogs.

  Art Collections (Access)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to improve the advertising of access to private works of art for which the owner receives tax relief for providing such access; and if he will make a statement.[62381]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In return for conditional tax exemption, owners of heritage assets have to provide reasonable public access to those assets and to publicise the agreed access arrangements. Most conditionally exempt works of art are displayed in houses, museums and galleries open to the public. Others which are not on public display are listed on the Inland Revenue's Register of conditionally exempt works of art, which is available on the Internet.

  The Finance Act 1998 strengthened the rules of the conditional exemption scheme to ensure, among other things, that the public are better informed about their rights to see conditionally exempt assets. In future, owners of all conditionally exempt assets will be required, as a minimum, to advertise access arrangements through the Inland Revenue's Internet site. Owners will also be required to disclose information about the terms of the exemption.

  Export Levies
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised in levies on British exports to non-EU countries in each of the last five years; and what is the estimated figure for the current year. [63102]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Figures for receipts of export levies (which apply only to certain agricultural products) are available from 1994–95. They are as follows:

  £

  Year

  Amount

  1994–95

  5,600

  1995–96

  202,371

  1996–97

  295,679

  1997–98

  50,111

  No monies are expected to be raised from export levies in 1998–99.

  Non-EU Imports
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised from duties on imports from non-EU countries in each of the last five years; and what is the estimated figure for the current year. [63103]
  221
  Dawn Primarolo
  Net receipts of customs duties and agricultural levies on imports from non-EU countries have been as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  2,169.4

  1994–95

  2,164.5

  1995–96

  2,479.5

  1996–97

  2,299.5

  1997–98

  2,263.3

  The latest estimate for 1998–99, as published in the Pre Budget Report, is £2.0 billion.

  VAT
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the yield from VAT in the current financial year; and what is his estimate of its yield in 1999–2000. [63100]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest forecasts for VAT (as published in the November 1998 Pre Budget Report) in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are £52.6 billion and £55.0 billion respectively.

  Supplementary Tax Allowances
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of married couples over 65 years of age who are(a) receiving the full benefit of the married couples' supplementary tax allowance and (b) receiving no benefit or part benefit from those tax allowances. [62629]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Latest estimates for the number of married couples where one partner is aged 65 or more for 1998–99 are as follows:

  Thousand

  Number of couples

  (a) Receiving the full benefit of the appropriate age related married couple's allowance

  930

  (b) Receiving no benefit or part benefit of the supplementary age related married couple's allowance (including non-taxpayers)

  1,940

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the additional costs to the Treasury, for the current year, of supplementary tax allowances for the age-related personal allowance paid to citizens who are(a) aged 65 to 74 and (b) 75 years and over; and what is the total cost of age-related supplement incorporated into the married couples' allowance for the current year. [62627]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimated costs for 1998–99 of the excess of the aged personal and married couples' allowances over the corresponding allowances for non-aged taxpayers are as follows.

  Allowance

  £ billion

  a. Taxpayers aged (65 to 74)—personal allowance

  0.5

  b. Taxpayers aged (75 and over)—personal allowance

  0.4

  c. Taxpayers aged (65 and over)—married couples' allowance

  0.2

  Savings
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of(a) individuals and (b) households with savings (i) below £1,000, (ii) between £1,000 and £5,000, (iii) between £5,000 and £10,000 and (iv) above £10,000; and if these figures exclude pension fund entitlements. [62631]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on the estimated distribution of savings held by individuals is given in the table. Similar information on the distribution of savings held by households is shown in Table 5.9 of Family Resources Survey 1996–97, a copy of which is in the Library. Neither includes the value of accrued pension rights.

  Number of adults1 (million)

  Total

  46.0

  No savings or investments

  14.0

  With savings or investments

  32.0

  Less than £1,000

  14.5

  £1,000 but less than £5,000

  8.0

  £5,000 but less than £10,000

  3.1

  £10,000 or more

  6.4

  1 Population aged 16 or over

  Source:

  Financial Research Survey by NOP (March 1997—February 1998)

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is the e-mail address of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. [62880]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury does not have an E-mail address.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62844]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office has appointed two Special Advisers—Ms Anna Healy and Mr. Tim Walker—who provide advice on the full range of issues for which he is responsible. In addition, the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, Mr. Keith Hellawell, and his Deputy, Mr. Michael Trace have been working in the Cabinet Office since July 1998 when the responsibility for co-ordination of anti-drugs activity was transferred from the President of the Council to my right hon. Friend.

  My right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Privy Seal and Minister for Women has two special advisers, paid for from the Cabinet Office vote. Ms Clare Cozens advises on legislative strategy and parliamentary procedure, and policy across government. Ms Jo Gibbons advises on the presentation and co-ordination of policies which fall within my right hon. Friend's area of responsibility.
  223
  My right hon. Friend, the Government Chief Whip has two special advisers paid for from the Cabinet Office vote. Ms Sue Jackson and Mr. Ian McKenzie provide advice on the full range of issues for which the Government Chief Whip is responsible.

  The special advisers are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Embargo (Argentina)
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there have been any new exceptions to the arms embargo on Argentina. [63430]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A licence has recently been issued to allow the export of nine sets of gun rings and smoke grenade launchers to be mounted on armoured personnel carriers in service with the Argentine contingent of the UN forces in Cyprus. This decision represented an exception but not a change to the arms embargo on Argentina.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has

  Inward secondments from the private sector

  Name

  Company/Organisation

  Post

  Position

  Substantive appointments to posts in London or overseas

  A. Heffernan

  China Britain Trade Group

  Peking

  1st Secretary Commercial

  N. Collier

  Bank of England

  UKREP Brussels

  1st Secretary Economic and Finance

  T. McLaughlin

  British Nuclear Fuels

  Tokyo

  Counsellor Atomic Energy

  A. Vaudrey

  Civil Aviation Authority

  Washington

  Civil Air Attache

  J. Paxman

  BP

  Washington

  1st Secretary Environment

  J. McPherson

  European Investment Bank

  Ankara

  1st Secretary Commercial

  P. Jones

  BBC

  Research Department FCO

  Research Officer

  I. Sayers

  Standard Chartered Bank

  South East Asia Department FCO

  Desk Officer

  Appointments to commercial posts under the short term business attachment scheme

  M. Stephenson

  Midland Bank

  Kuala Lumpur

  Commercial Attache

  R. Pitfield

  Taylor Woodrow

  New York

  Commercial Attache

  D. Watson

  AMEC

  Johannesburg

  Commercial Attache

  R. Curwen

  Brown and Root

  Oslo

  Commercial Attache

  J. de la Paz

  Gifford and Partners

  Mexico

  Commercial Attache

  P. Shortt

  GLE

  UKREP Brussels

  Commercial Attache

  P. Forrest

  Moscow Narodny Bank

  Moscow

  Commercial Attache

  D. Johnson

  Mouchel

  Hong Kong

  Commercial Attache

  D. Musco

  Hayter Ltd

  Cairo

  Commercial Attache

  Staff seconded to overseas posts on inward investment work

  M. Davies

  Barclays

  Sydney

  Commercial Attache

  S. Wayne

  Barclays

  Los Angeles

  Commercial Attache

  J. Butler

  BT

  New York

  Commercial Attache

  M. Mullins

  National Westminster Bank

  New York

  Commercial Attache

  J. Wood

  York & Humberside Dev. Agency

  Chicago

  Commercial Attache

  J. Enefer

  Ernst & Young

  San Francisco

  Commercial Attache

  Edgar Fernandes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings the Minister 224
  had with the United Nations Special Representative on Cyprus, regarding her negotiations on the Cyprus issue; and if he will make a statement. [62597]

  Ms Quin
  We remain firmly committed to supporting UN efforts towards a comprehensively political settlement in Cyprus. We warmly welcomed the UN Secretary-General's 30 September announcement of a process for on-island contacts with both parties, led by the UN Deputy Special Representative for Cyprus, Dame Ann Hercus, aimed at reducing tensions and promoting progress towards a just and lasting settlement. Dame Ann has secured the agreement of the two parties to treat discussions within this process as confidential. We respect this, and urge both sides to co-operate in a constructive and flexible manner with Dame Ann, with whom we maintain close contact through our High Commissioner in Nicosia.

  Secondments
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people in his Department are currently on secondment from private companies; and if he will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62829]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are currently 23 staff seconded from the private sector to the FCO. Full details are as listed.

  of State, the right hon (Mr. Fatchett), had with Edgar Fernandes during 19 November. [62598]
  225
  Mr. Fatchett
  The prime purpose of my visit to Turkey, which took place on 17–19 November, was to promote British trade. I held a meeting with the then Deputy Prime Minister, Bulent Ecevit, at which Iraq, human rights and terrorism were the key subjects. It was not possible to discuss the case of Edgar Fernandes although, in my discussions with the British Consul General in Istanbul, I was briefed on the latest developments in the case.

  Hawk Aircraft (Indonesia)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that Hawk aircraft recently sold to Indonesia will not be used for the purposes of internal repression; and if he will make a statement. [62970]

  Mr. Fatchett
  16 Hawk Aircraft were licensed by the previous Administration in October 1996. The Indonesian authorities are well aware of the Government's position on human rights.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the sale of 16 Hawk aircraft to Indonesia. [62969]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received a number of representations from Members of Parliament, NGOs and members of the public on the question of the sale of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia.

  Strategic Arms Exports (Annual Report)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the annual report on strategic arms exports to be published. [63093]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 27 November 1998,Official Report, column 385.

WALES

  National Assembly Members (Salaries)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will make a decision on salaries for elected representatives in the National Assembly. [61567]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to determine the salaries payable to elected representatives in the Welsh Assembly. [61578]

  Mr. Michael
  I am not yet in a position to say when I shall make this decision.

  I have received a first stage report from the Senior Salary Review Body, which makes recommendations on the pay of ordinary Members, personal travel and subsistence payments and pensions and severance. I am currently considering it.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales will benefit from the national minimum wage. [61568]
  226
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales will benefit from the national minimum wage. [61569]

  Mr. Hain
  Latest research shows that 109,000 people in Wales will benefit from the national minimum wage.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assist manufacturing industry in Wales. [61570]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are pursuing policies to deliver long-term economic stability, the essential platform for encouraging high levels of growth and employment.

  Farming (Aid)
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact on Wales of the recent package of aid for British farming. [61571]

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact on Wales of the recent package of aid for British farming. [61576]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The aid package, worth over £21 million to Welsh farmers, has helped to alleviate the forecast drop in farm incomes for 1998–99. The income figures published last week show that without the additional resources the Net Farm Income for mixed cattle and sheep farms in the Less Favoured Areas of Wales was forecast to fall by 66 per cent. The effect of the package has been to reduce that decline by around a half, to 32 per cent.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the increase in expenditure on education in Wales in 1999–2000. [61572]

  Mr. Hain
  In July this year we announced indicative increases in education spending of £110 million in 1999–2000, £250 million in 2000–01 and £370 million in 2001–02. These include increases in local authority spending on education.

  Decisions on allocations for education and other services are being announced in the statement on the local government revenue settlement.

  New Deal
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future development of the New Deal in Wales. [61573]

  Mr. Hain
  The New Deal is progressively being extended to help more people who want to find work. At the beginning of November, measures were introduced to help Disabled People and the New Deal for Lone Parents was extended from the pilot area to cover the whole of Wales. Last week we saw the introduction of pilots in West Wales and Bridgend/Rhondda Cynon Taff which brought the New Deal for Over 25s within the range of those who have been unemployed for 12 and 18 months respectively.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's planned expenditure on ministerial travel for 1998–99 within Wales. [61575]

  Mr. Michael
  It is not possible to give a specific figure for ministerial travel as the money allocated is subsumed within wider travel and subsistence budgets.

  Waterhouse Child Abuse Inquiry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he received the report by Sir Ronald Waterhouse into child abuse in North Wales; and when he expects to publish its conclusions. [61577]

  Mr. Michael
  I expect to receive the Tribunal's report early in the new year. It will be presented to the House as soon as possible thereafter.

  Steelmaking
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the competitiveness of steelmaking in Wales. [61579]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh steel industry is among the most competitive in the world. However, like others, it is experiencing difficult trading conditions. The industry is therefore undertaking a range of measures to maintain its competitiveness, such as the introduction of new technology and team working. In particular British Steel has recently completed a £121m investment in a new continuous annealing process line at Port Talbot. This is the biggest single investment since privatisation and represents a massive vote of confidence in the Welsh steel Industry.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the work of the taskforce established to maximise benefits from European structural funds. [61580]

  Mr. Hain
  The Taskforce was established on 16 October 1998 and has been charged with advising my right hon. Friend on Welsh interests in the ongoing negotiation of the draft Structural Funds Regulations for the period 2000–06 and considering, advising and co-ordinating the preparation of a national development strategy and related operational programmes to implement Structural Funds investment in Wales over that period.

  As part of this process, it has established working groups to examine the needs of the Welsh economy both by sector and by region and also to work up strategic and local priorities. Its work embraces a wide range of partners to enable it to command the greatest possible degree of participation and ownership.

  First Minister
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the powers of First Minister of the Welsh National Assembly. [61581]

  Mr. Michael
  I have received no such representations.

  National Assembly Members (Election)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the arrangements for election of additional members to the National Assembly. [61582]

  Mr. Michael
  No. The return of members for the Assembly's electoral regions will be made in accordance with the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 1998.

  Consultant Referral Waiting Times
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about waiting times for patients awaiting referral to a consultant. [61583]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Latest published information shows that 93 per cent. of patients waiting for a first outpatient appointment were seen within six months, (79 per cent. within three months). In addition, 95 per cent. of patients waiting for inpatient/daycase treatment in hospital were seen within 12 months (78 per cent. within three months).

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy on the role of lobbyists in informing decisions taken by his Department. [61584]

  Mr. Michael
  Lobbyists play no role in decisions made by my Department.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on local communities of the closure of nine Territorial Army centres in Wales. [61585]

  Mr. Hain
  Six Territorial Army Centres in Wales are to close of which two are not currently in use. Twenty two Territorial Army centres will remain in use: 17 in South Wales, 5 in North Wales, plus 3 centres are to be retained for cadets.

  The Ministry of Defence have listened to the responses which resulted from the consultative documents with the results that the current complement in Wales of 2,982 will be reduced by 435, a reduction of 14.6 per cent., the lowest of any UK region.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals for NHS trusts. [61586]

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the NHS Trust proposals for Wales. [61587]

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the reconfiguration of NHS trusts in Wales. [61588]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), 9 December 1998,Official Report, column 309.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his proposals are for local government revenue spending and grant support in 1999–2000; and what his plans are for the following two years. [63603]

  Mr. Michael
  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review and extensive consultation on my spending priorities in Wales, I propose that total standard spending in 1999–2000 should be £3,243 million, an increase of £143 million or 4.6 per cent. on the comparable figure for 1998–99.

  This is a good settlement for local government and for Wales as a whole. It is not just about money but about partnership. It paves the way for the co-operation I have offered to the leaders of local authorities which is aimed at improving services and extending opportunity everywhere in Wales. It also sets the scene for a strong partnership between the National Assembly for Wales and local government which I believe is essential for the success of both.

  The increase includes an additional £70 million revenue spending for education and extra provision so that local authorities can:
  improve children's services in line with the Government's response to the report by Sir William Utting;
  provide at least half price bus transport for pensioners from April 1999; and
  implement a new regime to deal with contaminated land with effect from 1 July 1999.

  I announced details of the settlement for police authorities on 2 December 1998.

  I propose to set aggregate external finance at £2,827 million, of which I plan to make available £1,914 million in revenue support grant and council tax reduction scheme grant, £656 million in redistributed business rates and £257 million for specific grants.

  I propose that the non-domestic rate poundage for Wales should rise by 3.2 per cent. in line with the Retail Prices Index for the 12 months to September 1998, giving a rate of 44.3p in the pound for 1999–2000.

  There will be a scheme to limit council tax increases; it will be similar to the targeted scheme that operated for 1998–99 and I will announce further details shortly.

  I also intend that there should be new arrangements for council tax benefit subsidy, to prevent the full cost of excessive council tax increases being passed onto the national tax payer in the form of higher subsidy payments. The arrangements will apply to county and county borough councils only in 1999–2000, and the National Assembly for Wales will be able to extend them to police authorities the following year.

  I expect local authorities to budget prudently, and I am prepared to use my capping powers if they decide to make excessive increases in council tax.

  Looking ahead to the following two years my plans provide for total standard spending and aggregate external
  230
  finance (net of specific grants) to be as reflected in the table. The National Assembly will take the final decisions. My proposals for 1999–2000, on the same net basis, are also given for comparative purposes:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Net TSS (£ million)

  2,986

  3,128

  3,279

  Of which Net AEF (£ million)

  2,570

  2,671

  2,778

  Percentage increase in net TSS

  5.1

  4.8

  4.8

  Real terms percentage increase in net TSS

  2.5

  2.2

  2.3

  Further information on the proposed settlement, including details for individual authorities and the detailed arrangements for council tax benefit subsidy, will be announced shortly. I will also be discussing with the Welsh Local Government Association a range of performance measures linked to this announcement.

  My Department has written today to the Welsh Local Government Association and all local authorities in Wales to initiate a consultation on my proposals for next year's settlement. Copies of the consultation letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was allocated in the 1998–99 standard spending assessment to each local authority in Wales to repay capital debt. [62652]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are no separately identifiable allocations within standard spending assessments for repayment of debt. The amounts in respect of overall capital charges included in the 1998–99 standard spending assessments are given in the following table.

  £000

  Isle of Anglesey

  6,772

  Gwynedd

  10,608

  Conwy

  8,659

  Denbighshire

  9,015

  Flintshire

  12,691

  Wrexham

  9,739

  Powys

  12,603

  Ceredigion

  5,696

  Pembrokeshire

  10,800

  Carmarthenshire

  14,353

  Swansea

  22,312

  Neath Port Talbot

  12,529

  Bridgend

  10,882

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  9,011

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  17,065

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5,019

  Caerphilly

  12,061

  Blaenau Gwent

  7,606

  Torfaen

  8,982

  Monmouthshire

  5,469

  Newport

  13,204

  Cardiff

  24,236

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  649

  Gwent Police

  821

  North Wales Police

  678

  South Wales Police

  2,412

  Total Unitary Authorities

  249,311

  Total Police Authorities

  4,560

  Total Wales

  253,871

  231
  Capital charges cover repayment of debt, interest payments on outstanding debt, non-operational leasing charges, and for the police authorities capital expenditure charged to the revenue account. The figures are net of capital financing grants.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures his Department has taken to encourage local authorities in Wales to repay debt. [62653]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Local authorities' new borrowing is regulated by the issue of credit approvals in accordance with Government policy. Authorities have a statutory duty to make provision to meet their existing debts. It is for them to decide whether it would be prudent to repay any loan before they are contractually required to do so.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assumptions he has made about the workload of the National Assembly for Wales up to autumn 1999 in planning his work in 1999. [62365]

  Mr. Michael
  My officials are identifying the business the Assembly will need to address in its early days, based on the emerging standing orders, the draft Transfer of Functions Order, the work currently in hand in the Welsh Office and the Government's programme of legislation. I shall share this forward look with the leaders of the political parties in Wales so that we can work towards a common understanding of the likely early demands on the Assembly's time.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking in response to the report of the Commission for Racial Equality about the treatment of ethnic minority people in Wales. [62528]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  A Survey of current Secondary Health Care Practice was prepared by the NHS Wales Equality Unit in partnership with the Commission for Racial Equality. I attended the launch of the report on 30 November 1998 and gave the Department's support to its recommendation that health care should be accessible, fair and without disadvantage. Welsh Office officials will be meeting the Commission for Racial Equality to consider the issues further.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the management of the Welsh Development Agency following the recent resignations of senior staff. [62363]

  Mr. Hain
  The WDA expects some turnover of its staff in the normal course of events and this always presents an opportunity to strengthen the organisation. I am confident that the management team in place will be able to deliver the challenging agenda which Government have set.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of action being taken within the Welsh Office to deal with the problem of the millennium bug. [63094]

  Mr. Michael
  In common with all Departments the Welsh Office completes a Quarterly Return to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency on the progress towards achieving Millennium compliance of it's internal systems and the general state of readiness of the wider public sector in Wales.

  These returns are published on the Internet and copies are placed in the Library of the House. The last returns were published on 2 December.

  I am currently satisfied with my Departments progress towards achieving Millennium date change compliance but will keep that progress under review.

  Nurses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to take to improve morale amongst nurses. [62697]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Department is preparing a Strategic Framework for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting in Wales following consultation with the health service. It will set out the vital contribution that the profession makes to the health service.

  As an integral part of the Human Resource Strategy for Wales we will set the NHS targets to improve its record as an employer which will mean improving the quality of life of staff and their access to continuing professional development.

  The Government are committed to a fair and affordable pay settlement which will have a positive impact on the nursing profession. The Nurses Pay Review Body is currently considering evidence from the trade unions, Health Departments and employers and will make recommendations on pay levels to take effect on 1 April 1999. The Government will make an announcement early in the new year.

  Steel Imports
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Chairman of British Steel plc concerning imports of steel products from the Far East; and if he will make a statement. [62699]

  Mr. Hain
  None, but the Welsh Office maintains close contact with British Steel and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, met the Chairman of British Steel plc on 17 November to discuss this and a range of other issues affecting the steel industry.

  The Government consistently press for strict rules contained in the Steel Aid Code to be applied rigorously by Member States and for stringent monitoring and enforcement by the Commission. This has contributed to a climate in which illegal state aids have declined significantly in importance as a problem for the UK steel industry.
  233
  Where any cases give rise to concern, the Government are always willing to examine any evidence put forward, and to consider what action might be appropriate.

  Direct Labour Departments
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the losses that will be made by local authority direct labour departments in this financial year. [62681]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I have made no such estimate because local authorities are not due to submit reports for this financial year until 31 October 1999. However, I expect all authorities to do everything possible to achieve the specified financial objective for the work which they carry out.

  I have asked those authorities whose direct service organisations made losses for the 1997–98 financial year to report to me on what action they are taking to return their organisations to profit. I shall consider whether any further action is necessary when I have received these reports.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Performance League Tables
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research he has commissioned on value-added models of performance league tables. [62583]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Following research sponsored by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, and a consultation by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, we have conducted a value added pilot study, the results of which were published as a supplement to the secondary school tables on 1 December. The study involved some 200 schools and investigated a variety of options for presenting value added measures from Key Stage 3 to GCSE/GNVQ, based on information about individual pupil performance. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to publish league tables weighted according to pupil performance at Key Stage Two. [62582]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We aim to publish measures of value added by secondary schools from Key Stage 2 to the end of compulsory schooling from 2003, when suitable data for matching pupils' achievements over time are expected to become available.

  Further Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total amount the further education sector is expected to raise in efficiency savings in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and if these sums are included in the announced increases in resources allocated to further education in each of those years. [62548]

  Mr. Mudie
  The efficiency savings expected of the Further Education sector are equivalent to £135 million in financial year 1998–99 and £35 million in financial year 234
  1999–2000. The increased funding that has been allocated to Further Education in each of these years does not include these amounts but does assume that these efficiency savings will be realised.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his figures for the additional students expected in the further education sector by 2002 will be calculated on the basis of student enrolments. [62547]

  Mr. Mudie
  The additional students expected in the further education sector by 2002 are calculated on the basis of the number of students in Further Education colleges.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if infant schools which continue to operate admission limits in excess of 30 or multiples of 30 will receive additional resources to meet the class-size pledge. [62608]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Whether individual schools receive additional resources to meet the class size pledge will depend on the implementation plan submitted by their local education authority and the costings to support that plan, as approved by the Secretary of State. A school that continues to operate admission limits in excess of 30 or multiples of 30 may receive additional resources to meet the class size pledge if it is judged reasonable for it to continue to operate those limits in the context of the authority's plan, taking into account the circumstances of the school.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to ensure the education in subsequent years of an exempted pupil admitted as a 31st child consistent with the class size requirements of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. [62606]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  An excepted pupil falling within paragraphs 2 to 5 of the Schedule in the Education (Infant Class Sizes)(England) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1973) will cease to be treated as such a pupil after the end of the school year in which he/she is admitted to the school. This does not apply to an excepted pupil falling within paragraphs 6 and 7 of that Schedule because that exception permits a pupil with special educational needs, normally educated in a special school or a special unit attached to a mainstream school, to gain the benefits of being able to join in a mainstream class for some lessons.

  Every governing body and local education authority will be under a legal duty to comply with class size legislation. We will be monitoring closely all aspects of that legislation, including the operation of the limit.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if, where an exempted pupil is admitted to an infant class in excess of 30, additional resources will be made available from his Department to meet the class size pledge in subsequent years. [62607]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We will be providing sufficient resources to enable all local authorities to meet the class size pledge. We intend to make resources available to deal with contingencies which arise when, exceptionally, a child is lawfully admitted to a school, taking an infant
  235
  class above 30 pupils. Whether an authority will require additional resources to deal with a case of that kind will clearly depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

  Higher Education (Fees)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice his Department has issued to Higher Education institutions regarding the collection of fees from(a) EU and (b) UK students. [62603]

  Mr. Mudie
  Our advice did not differentiate between UK and non-UK EU students. My Department wrote to universities and colleges on 7 October 1998 in response to reports that some institutions were pressing for payment of the full £1,000 from students still awaiting an awards letter. It reiterated the advice contained in an earlier letter from the Department of 18 November 1997 about the importance of institutions undertaking the collection of the fee sensitively and flexibly in the early months of a degree course, taking account of the particular circumstances of individual students. It went on to advise that, in the case of students still awaiting an awards letter, and if instalment or other arrangements were offered, these should be put into effect only when the awards letter became available, so that payments were based on actual amounts due and students not required to make any contribution were not disadvantaged.

  Dental Students
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on (i) the effect of debt among dental students and (ii) the impact of this on their willingness to work in the NHS; [62315]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the British Dental Association's survey of dental students' debt. [62313]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department has not commissioned any research on the effect of debt on dental students but, we have recently received a summary of the survey by the British Dental Association which we shall consider carefully.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide extra help for dental students who are heavily in debt. [62314]

  Mr. Mudie
  Dental and other students who entered higher education before 1998–99 and who take out five or more loans will repay these loans over a period of seven years compared with five years for other borrowers. They will not have to start repaying their student loans until their income reaches the earnings related threshold which for 1998–99 is set at £17,784 per annum.

  From 1998–99 dental students in the first four years of their course will have access to the same loan, grant and fees support as all other new entrants, but they will receive help in years five and beyond through NHS bursaries and the Department of Health will meet their tuition fees. After graduation, they will benefit from the fairer repayment system which we are introducing, which links repayments directly to graduates income. No repayments are made until their income reaches a threshold, initially set at £10,000, and thereafter they are calculated as a percentage of income above that level.
  236
  This will ensure that dental students, and others with larger loans to repay will have affordable repayments linked directly to their earnings.

  PE Teachers (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many secondary school physical education teachers have been employed by local education authority and grant maintained schools in Gloucestershire since 1979. [62973]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not available.

  School Performance Bonus Scheme
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his oral statement of 3 December 1998,Official Report, columns 1041–45, if he will make a statement on the intended scope of the school performance bonus scheme. [63334]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Initial plans are that the School Performance Awards Scheme will cover up to a third of schools. Over time we would expect many more schools to be able to benefit. All payments would be allocated on the basis of merit. I will consult further on the technical document planned for publication in the New Year.

  Teachers (Supergrades)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the recently announced supergrades for teachers will be filled by existing teachers. [62908]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All Advanced Skills Teacher posts will be filled by serving teachers, because candidates need to be assessed in their present teaching posts. Advanced Skills Teacher posts may be filled by internal candidates, or by external candidates further to advertisement of posts. Both routes are lawful, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would prefer Advanced Skills Teacher posts to be advertised in order to maximise the field of candidates.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional funding is available to schools to support the literacy and numeracy hours. [62347]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are providing significant investment to support the implementation of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies in primary schools. This year we have given £65 million to schools to purchase books for reading. On 7 December we announced an additional £54 million to support our drive to raise literacy standards in primary schools, a similar amount will be made available for schools to implement the numeracy hour in September 1999.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evaluation he has made of the studies referred to in the Green Paper, "Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs", by the Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre and the Manchester
  237
  Metropolitan University relating to teaching methods for tackling dyslexia; and if he intends to publish the evaluations. [62312]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The results of the Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre research project, which has just been completed, will be published in the Department's research report series in February 1999. The results from the Manchester Metropolitan University research project are being published by the University. As a result of their research the Manchester Metropolitan University has been contracted to produce a video, teacher's handbook and other materials to support the teaching of pupils with mild to moderate literacy difficulties in mainstream schools. A copy of the video and materials will be sent to the Literacy Consultant(s) in each Local Education Authority. Summaries of both research projects will be in the Department's research brief series which appears on the Internet and Intranet.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give details of the Government's plans to monitor the impact of the new funding system on recruitment to higher education institutions of various categories of student, including mature students. [61932]

  Mr. Mudie
  Initial evidence shows that there is a small increase in the number of school and college leavers accepted for higher education, and that there is almost no change in the social composition of accepted applicants.

  My Department has in place a programme of evaluation work to assess the impact of the new funding arrangements on participation in higher education by different types of student, examining for instance the social background, ethnic group, disability, age and gender of students. This work will draw on data produced by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and subsequently in the first half of next year by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). In addition we are commissioning an update of the Student Income and Expenditure Survey which will provide information about the impact of the new arrangements on student finances.

  The key results of our monitoring and research will be published and available to Parliament.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of the Social Affairs Council held in Brussels on 1 and 2 December; and if he will make a statement. [62704]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I attended the first session of the Social Affairs Council and I attended the joint meeting of Social Affairs Ministers and Economic and Finance Ministers, both on 1 December 1998. My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry and I attended the second session of the Social Affairs Council on 2 December.

  The first session of the Social Affairs Council discussed and agreed proposals for revisions to the Employment Guidelines for 1999 and the Joint Report on Implementation of the 1998 Guidelines. The joint meeting
  238
  of Social Affairs Ministers and Economic and Finance Ministers adopted the Employment Guidelines for 1999 and the Joint Report on Implementation of the 1998 Guidelines, and both will now be submitted to the Vienna European Council on 11–12 December to be endorsed. The joint meeting also heard a presentation from Sir Brian Unwin, Chairman of the European Investment Bank, on the progress in implementing the programme agreed at the Luxembourg Jobs Summit for increased lending by the Bank to promote employment.

  The second session of the Social Affairs Council on 2 December reached political agreement on a common position on the second amendment to the Carcinogens Directive and political agreement on a common position on a proposed Directive on Potentially Explosive Atmospheres.

  The Council reached political agreement on the amendment to Regulation 1408/71 (social security for migrant workers) to extend certain elements to students.

  The Council reached political agreement on the second reading of a Decision to encourage mobility between Member States for people in work-linked vocational training (Europass).

  The Council was unable to reach agreement on the Worker Participation Directive element of the European Company Statute package.

  The Council discussed a Presidency report on the follow up to the 1995 Beijing Women's Conference. The Council noted and endorsed the Commission's mid-term report on safety, hygiene and health at work. The Presidency reported on the November Social Dialogue Conference in Vienna. The Commission reported, without endorsement, on its three recent initiatives: on information and consultation of workers, where the social partners had failed to reach agreement; on a proposed extension of the Working Time Directive to excluded sectors; and on its Communication on work organisation.

  European Union (Promotional Literature)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money the European Union is spending in the current year on providing literature about the EU in schools in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [62414]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: I understand that money from a number of sources may be used by the European Commission for this purpose. According to the Commission's Representation in the UK, I understand that, while the Commission can identify the cost of some specific publications intended for distribution to UK schools, it cannot provide a global figure.

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the 1997–98 annual report from the President of the SEN Tribunal will be published; and if he will make a statement. [63431]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The report has been published today, and copies have been placed in the Library.
  239
  The Tribunal provides a valuable and independent mechanism for considering parents' appeals against decisions of local education authorities. It is of credit to all those working with the Tribunal—the President, the members, and the secretariat staff—that the Tribunal has maintained its targets for dealing with appeals, in spite of the increased volume of such appeals. The Tribunal has earned a much deserved reputation for fairness and impartiality and for ensuring that its hearings are as informal as possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Livestock (Assessment and Classification)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria are used(a) to measure the performance of British livestock and (b) to classify carcases of livestock. [63140]

  Mr. Rooker
  For livestock animals, the performance criteria used are growth rate, feed efficiency and reproductive rate. For carcases, the performance criteria used are conformation, fat cover and the finished weight of the carcase.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to give financial assistance to pig producers. [62321]

  Mr. Rooker
  The EU pigmeat regime is very light and contains no provision for direct aids to producers of the sort introduced for beef and sheep farmers. Paying these as a state aid would contravene European law. Moreover, we generally oppose state aid schemes in the pig sector because they can distort trade, interfere with the market and risk prolonging a crisis.

  The pig sector is benefiting from a number of market related measures which has been agreed within the EU and supported by the Government. These have been worth almost £100 million in market support across the EU this year. Measures include the re-introduction of refunds on exports of fresh and frozen carcases and cuts of pigmeat; two further increases in those refunds—including a 75 per cent. increase on exports to Russia; and the introduction of an aids to private storage scheme.

  The Government continue to fund strategic R&D of assistance to the pig industry to the tune of £2.5 million per annum. An increasing proportion of this spend is on joint projects with the industry, a clear sign that the work we are funding is of value.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the British pig industry; and what plans he has to assist pig farmers to increase their trade within the European Union. [62322]

  Mr. Rooker
  Like its counterparts in the rest of the EU, the British pig industry is going through a difficult time at present, with market prices well below the cost of production. The crisis is due mainly to over-production, because of an exaggerated producer response to the BSE crisis and to a reduction in supply due to outbreaks of classical swine fever (CSF) on mainland Europe,240
  principally in the Netherlands. This has led to a distorted version of the classic pig cycle, with the position being exacerbated by the strong pound, high production in the USA and a reduction in world demand, e.g. in Russia and the Far East.

  The Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) and Food from Britain have helped the British pig industry to establish a healthy export trade in pork and pork products with other EU countries. In 1997, over 200,000 tonnes were exported to the EU (up some 20 per cent. on 1996) and this figure is likely to be exceeded in 1998.

  For their part, Government Ministers have directed their efforts at raising the profile of British pigmeat in the domestic market, particularly the catering market. We have spearheaded a campaign aimed at the catering and food service sector with the objective of increasing the use of pigmeat products in a sector which takes 30 per cent. of the pigmeat market.

  In addition, the major retailers have given voluntary undertakings that all their own-label fresh pork, bacon, ham, sausages and pork pies will come from stall and tether and MBM free systems. In addition, they will not sell imported fresh pork processed or packaged in the UK, under a British label. These are major advances which will be welcomed by the British pig industry.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the degree of certainty about the link between the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle and the presence locally of badgers; and if he will make a statement. [62909]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Krebs report concluded that the sum of evidence strongly supports the view that in Britain badgers are a significant source of TB infection in cattle.

  Aromatherapy Oils
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if aromatherapy oils are classified as agricultural products. [63048]

  Mr. Rooker
  Aromatherapy oils would not normally be classified as agricultural products but if the hon. Member writes to me with specific details about the products she is concerned with I will try to provide a more definitive answer.

  Abattoirs
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce maximum line speeds in abattoirs. [62784]

  Mr. Rooker
  GB meat hygiene legislation provides the Meat Hygiene Service with powers to require the slowing of line speeds in individual abattoirs where, in the opinion of the Official Veterinary Surgeon, line speeds are such as to jeopardise the satisfactory inspection or the hygienic production of meat. I have no plans, however, for the blanket introduction of maximum line speeds in licensed abattoirs.

  Calf Processing Scheme
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposed restoration of grant aid for the calf processing scheme. [63128]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement given by my right hon. Friend the Minister to the House on 16 November 1998,Official Report, columns 624–26. The new rate of aid of £55.85 per calf came into force on 7 December.

  Milk Prices
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that reductions in prices paid to milk producers are passed on to milk consumers. [63127]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pricing decisions at retail level in respect of produce, including milk, are matters for the commercial judgment of the various food retail companies, which operate in a fiercely competitive market. However, it must be remembered that a significant part of the final price of food to the consumer is accounted for by processing,242
  distribution and marketing costs. So the proportional impact of raw material price changes would be expected to be much reduced at retail level.

  Fallen Stock (Disposal)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make an announcement of future arrangements for the disposal of fallen stock. [63139]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government consider that it is the responsibility of the livestock industry to arrange for the disposal of its waste, including fallen stock.

  BSE Inquiry
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the total cost of the current BSE inquiry; and how many staff have been allocated to it. [62950]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: The estimated direct cost of the BSE Inquiry is £10 million, excluding departmental costs and legal support for departmental witnesses. The number of staff allocated to the Inquiry has fluctuated according to need; it currently stands at 85.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

The Channel Islands and the European Union
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to resist attempts by the European Union to become involved in the affairs of the Channel Islands and levels of taxation pertaining there.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Channel Islands are not subject to European Union instruments on taxation. But the Government strongly support European Union, Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development and Group of 7 initiatives to counter harmful tax competition, avoidance and evasion wherever they exist. Therefore, the Government are encouraging the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to co-operate with those initiatives.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that, while every country, every jurisdiction, should, like the Crown dependencies, co-operate in the fight against money laundering and international crime generally, there would be grave dangers in our accepting the right of the European Union—or, indeed, the OECD—to demand changes in the tax arrangements of the dependent territories and the Crown dependencies merely because those arrangements were considered to amount to harmful tax competition in the sense that they deprived other countries of revenue? Is there not a real danger of the European Union picking on the allegedly harmful tax competition provided by the Crown dependencies, and then, having persuaded us to accept that case, using exactly the same arguments against Britain as part of its campaign for harmonisation of taxes generally, and business taxes in particular?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the recent report from Andrew Edwards made it quite plain that the island authorities had made it clear that they want to take a constructive part in international discussions about harmful tax competition. I can say specifically—and this may be of assistance—that we insisted that the principles of the EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation and the proposed directive on taxation and savings should be,
"within the framework of the constitutional arrangements",
between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, the House will certainly recognise that the question of harmonisation of
928
taxation within the European Union is very sensitive. However, can my noble friend confirm that the study of the Channel Islands tax practices is part of that vast review of alleged harmful tax competition which is now going on under the chairmanship of a junior Treasury Minister, Mrs. Dawn Primarolo? Can my noble friend also confirm that among the "harmful practices" already identified are those helpful measures introduced only last year by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist the film industry, together with other measures in the past that helped to establish the enterprise zones within the UK as major areas for development? Can my noble friend further confirm that the banning of those valuable tax concessions will not be subject to a veto?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is a very sensitive area. Indeed, I expect that is why I was asked to deal with it. There is no conspiracy involved. I am repeating now, for the third time at least, the fact that the review which was carried out by Andrew Edwards was not a review of tax practices; it was to do with financial regulation in the Crown dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
I repeat what I said on the last occasion. The Treasury is always alert to questions of harmful tax competition, unlawful tax havens and the like. That is part of the normal duty of any prudent Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, as I said, there is no conspiracy; nothing is being hidden. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said at least half a dozen times when the same questions were put to him a few days ago, we shall, where appropriate, put United Kingdom interests first.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does not this question reveal a far wider problem; namely, that of speculative and hot money, usually residing in offshore tax havens, which is totally out of control in the world system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that was one of the reasons for having the Edwards review of financial regulation. He said—and I paraphrase now rather than quote—that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were in the top league of offshore financial centres. But plainly the islands themselves assert, maintain and believe that they do not want unlawful, illegitimate money going through their financial centres. They have promised to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government in tightening up their internal regulation. I am chairing the committee and the first meeting of this co-operative committee will take place on 21st January of next year.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, a radio programme today suggested that the Government have issued a statement regarding tax harmonisation. Given its importance, can the Minister say whether included in that statement is a reaffirmation of the position that he has described as regards the Channel Islands?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think any statement made on the radio this morning needs to

929
reaffirm what I have said so often. The constitutional arrangements between Her Majesty's Government and the Channel Islands are plain: we have a power of last resort to interfere with their domestic matters, which includes taxation. It would be unprecedented for Her Majesty's Government to interfere with their domestic legislation, which includes taxation. I cannot make the position any clearer than that.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to harmful tax competition. But, as tax competition normally drives taxes down, how can that be harmful?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if one jurisdiction has tax arrangements which disadvantage its competitor nations, it is quite capable of being harmful. Not all tax competition drives taxes down. I think that the noble Lord will remember that very often taxes are reduced on the basis of political philosophy. I think he will recall that within his own experience. If your Lordships wanted me to—I imagine you would not—I could give the whole of the definition of harmful tax competition, which runs to about half a page. But not today, I hear.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, in accepting that taxation matters form no link between the European Union and the dependent territories, is it not the case that the Edwards Report demonstrates clearly that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are implementing strict financial controls which are internationally recognised?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have stricter controls than many of their overseas dependent territory competitors. They recognise that one has to be constantly alert because the minds of the accountants know no limits as regards ingenuity. One has obviously to be prudent, careful and up to date in dealing with potential abuse.

Motability
2.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the Motability scheme's contribution to improving the mobility of disabled people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the Motability scheme has turned around the lives of many thousands of disabled people by giving them mobility with a car of their own. I thank my noble friend Lord Morris, who did so much to establish the Motability scheme under the auspices of our then Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Callaghan. We also owe a debt of gratitude to the noble
930
Lord, Lord Sterling, who has been so committed to the scheme. Today the Motability scheme celebrates its 21st anniversary. It has come of age.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, my noble friend will know that replacing the invalid tricycle with the mobility allowance and Motability was one of my sterner tests as the first Minister for Disabled People. Is she aware that Motability has now issued its millionth car? And would she agree that, as we celebrate its 21st birthday today, we should honour the memory of the late Lord Goodman, its founder chairman; warmly acknowledge the immense contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, to this uniquely British and hugely successful partnership between the public and private sectors; and also pay tribute to people like George Wilson and Peter Large of the voluntary sector, without whose help Motability could never have been created?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. I would certainly like to join my noble friend in expressing my thanks to those who were so important in the foundation of Motability. As my noble friend has said, something like 360,000 cars are now on the road. Motability is the largest leasing scheme by far in Europe and takes up something like 6 per cent. of all new cars in the UK market. If the House will indulge me, I will quote from David of Cardiff, who suffered a prolapse of part of his spine and therefore could not work. He acquired a specially adapted Ford car through Motability and, as a result, was able to get and hold down a job. He wrote to us saying:
"Going to work means social integration, the discipline of getting up and something to get up for, a reason to feel good at the end of the day … There is no reason why a disabled person cannot hold their head up in the world of work side by side with an able bodied person".
That was made possible for him by a Motability car.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the valuable role that the Motability scheme plays in enabling severely disabled people to travel to and from work, and that, for them, having a job may well depend upon having such transport arrangements?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord so agrees with my previous answer.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, anything that my noble friend can do to help disabled people with cars will be greatly appreciated. But, for those without cars who rely upon public transport, can my noble friend tell us what discussions the Government have had with the bus and rail companies with a view to making their services accessible to disabled people? If there were any discussions and such discussions were fruitless, will the Government consider applying pressure on these organisations?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Government have good news on this front. It is more a matter for the Department of the Environment,

931
Transport and the Regions but, as I understand it, all new trains due to be brought into use from 1st January 1999—that is in a month's time—will be appropriately adapted so that all disabled people can have access to them. New buses, starting with the large single-decker buses, will be appropriately adapted from the year 2000. I understand that new taxis will be appropriately adapted, probably from the year 2002. Consultations are ongoing between the Disabled Persons Transport and Access Committee and the manufacturers and operators. Clearly it may take up to 15 years before the existing stock has been fully replaced with the new vehicles, but the progress, with consent, I think is very good news.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the new idea of stopping private cars coming into city centres and allowing in only public transport, will special consideration be given to disabled people to allow them to bring in their adapted cars? Otherwise, they will be at a loss.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is customary that where, for example, only public transport and taxis are permitted on streets people with, if not orange, then at least green disability badges are also permitted. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness and try to give her the assurance that she seeks.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the scheme applies to those who are temporarily disabled?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Motability cars are available primarily for those who have a long-term impairment and are therefore eligible for the mobility higher allowance. One of the good pieces of news which I am sure your Lordships will welcome is that in the proposed welfare reform Bill we will extend mobility payments to children aged three and four so that when those children who have heavy equipment, like polio equipment and so on, need access, their parents will he able to join the Motability scheme. But Motability is designed essentially for people who have long-term mobility problems.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank everyone for their kind words. There are many people present who have been involved. The scheme started under the government of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. A very key person—a splendid man—was the late Lord Ennals. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, in her former role, the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, have all played a role. As the late Lord Goodman himself said—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Sterling of Plaistow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is the unsung heroes, thousands of them over the years, who help the disabled when their
932
cars break down and help them in their travels, who deserve credit? A family revolves round a disabled person and helps to give them a new future.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I very much welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sterling. It is certainly true that when one has a disabled person one very often has a disabled family. The disability is borne by all members of the family, as many noble Lords will know. The mobility scheme, extended with the introduction of DLA in 1992, and Motability cars have given disabled people independence so that they are no longer continually dependent on being looked after by members of their family, however generously and gracefully that service has been offered. It has been a major transformation for disabled people to have the independence that most of us here today take for granted.

New Deal for the Young Unemployed
2.52 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress being made in implementing the New Deal for the young unemployed.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the New Deal for young unemployed people is making encouraging progress. More than 185,000 young people have started the programme. This includes the whole stock of young people who had been unemployed for more than six months when the New Deal was launched nationally in April. Young people have welcomed the advice, guidance and support offered by New Deal personal advisers. More than 38,000 young people had been helped into jobs by the end of October. A further 31,000 were benefiting from training and work experience. Nearly 33,000 employers have signed up to the New Deal.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the success of the New Deal over the past 18 months which she has just very properly enunciated is to be not only warmly welcomed but further developed? Can she say what percentage of the companies that have signed up to the scheme have recruited young people? Secondly, what is the percentage of participants who have dropped out, having exercised an option?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend's first question but I shall certainly write to him. I am grateful to him for welcoming the programme. It is a very important scheme in terms of supporting unemployed young people, getting them back into jobs and providing them with further education and training. There are drop-out rates from the New Deal. Again, I shall have to give my noble friend the precise statistics by writing to him. The Government are monitoring

933
those drop-out rates. We are not always told the reasons when a young person decides to leave the scheme, but we assume that in most cases it is because the young person has either gone into full-time education and training outside the New Deal or that he or she has got a job. But of course it could be that the young person has married a millionaire.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, what percentage of those invited to interview under the New Deal scheme have failed to turn up and what sanctions do the Government impose on those who do not appear?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, when a young person does not turn up for a New Deal interview, he or she is re-invited and given a second chance. The sanctions for refusing to participate in the New Deal when a young person has been unemployed for six months is that they lose their benefit. However, I shall have to write to the noble Lord with the precise percentage.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the option for self-employment is now an extra dimension within the New Deal and that that aspect of its activities is linked to the Prince's Youth Business Trust, of which I am chairman in South Yorkshire? Applications are now starting to come through, enabling the Prince's Youth Business Trust to take more people off the dole and launch them into their new businesses. Can she expand a little on that activity within the New Deal?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are enormously grateful to the Prince's Youth Business Trust for its involvement in the New Deal. We are all very much aware of the work that my noble friend has put in. The New Deal for young unemployed people, and indeed those over 25, is fully operational in Barnsley and the South Yorkshire area. The Government want to hear more about particular good practice in relation to the self-employed and would want to disseminate information that can be provided about what is happening in South Yorkshire, and in Barnsley in particular, in respect of the self-employed.
Lord Tope: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the average cost of the three main options other than subsidised employment? Is she aware that on 18th May one of my honourable friends in another place was told that the average cost was about £4,000 and that on 17th November my honourable friend Don Foster was told that it was £2,600? Can she explain this apparent 35 per cent. cut?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the latest figure I have been given is rather different from either of those given by the noble Lord. Contrary to the rather, if I may say so, cynical fabrication and distortion in the CPS pamphlet, where the costs quoted were very far from
934
reality, the true cost of the 30,000 jobs that have been secured with the help of the New Deal by the end of September was about £1,000 per job.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I welcome the number of people taken off the street by the New Deal, but is the Minister aware that, in yesterday's Daily Mail, Harry Fletcher, Assistant General Secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, informed us that paedophiles are getting jobs working with children through the New Deal despite the fact that the staff of the New Deal knew of that? Will she assure the House that action will be taken to stop this happening again?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am aware of the press coverage in yesterday's newspapers of concerns about former sex offenders obtaining jobs through the New Deal. The Employment Service is doing all it can to play its part in preventing unsuitable people obtaining jobs with young people. It would never knowingly submit a serious sex offender for a job working with young children. The Employment Service requires employers, when signing up to the New Deal, to sign a declaration form confirming that they will carry out all the necessary checks with the police and others if the job includes unsupervised contact with children. The primary responsibility for checking on the suitability of people must rest with employers.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British chambers of commerce have complained about the lack of communication with the Employment Service? That is a serious accusation. Do the Government accept that criticism?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. The Employment Service is working closely with all employers and employers' organisations in the delivery of the New Deal. The fact that more than 30,000 employers have signed up to take part in it is a manifestation of the success of the Government, and of the Employment Service in particular, in making good contacts with those in the private and the public sectors who may be able to offer young people such opportunities.

Medicines Control Agency
3 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the proposed new arrangements under which the Medicines Control Agency will decide whether a product is a medicine or not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Medicines Control Agency is consulting on its proposals to introduce a statutory process for classifying products as medicines. Following

935
consideration of the comments received, Ministers will consider whether and what legislative proposals will be put before Parliament.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply and the proposal for a statutory basis is certainly welcome. Is she aware, however, that there have been recent concerns about the MCA moving the goal posts in this contentious area and that the new proposal provides, and I quote,
"that, in any legal proceedings, a final decision"—
that is, by the MCA—
"at the end of the process that a product was a medicinal product would he sufficient evidence that it was a medicinal product"?
In other words, even in a court of law the agency is to be prosecutor, judge and jury in the very area that has been causing concern. Surely that cannot be right.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are in the process of consulting on the proposals. We are very willing to listen to representations. I am grateful for the noble Earl's welcome and for his request for some clarification of the process in this complex area of the law. Perhaps I may reassure him that we are not in any way moving the goal posts or changing legal definitions. We are trying to ensure that there is an opportunity for manufacturers in particular to challenge judgments about whether something is or is not, under the law, a medicinal product. On the point about the decision being final in court, nothing that is proposed will in any way take away from manufacturers the possibility of contesting classification in either the civil or criminal courts or, indeed, of seeking a judicial review of the MCA's decisions.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the period of consultation by the Medicines Control Agency is so short, lasting only from 6th November to 31st December? Will her department consider extending the period of consultation beyond 31st December?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that the period is within the generally accepted range for consultation. However, I recognise that it coincides with the Christmas period. Although I would not encourage people to be dilatory in responding, by the same token I would not like to suggest that we would not consider responses received within a reasonable time after the close of the consultation period.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, vitamins which are currently classified as "food supplements" presumably carry no VAT, but if certain items are reclassified as "medicines", will that change their status? Will all items classified as "medicines" require a prescription or will people still be able to buy simple medicines over the counter, as now?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is not intended, under the proposals, to change the status of medicines or their classification which at present is subject to European and UK law. The question of whether a
936
medicine is a licensed medicine, an exempt medicine, a food supplement or, indeed, a cosmetic product is complex. It is because there are disputes around such borderline substances that we are trying to put in place a process of classification which is more transparent and which makes it easier for people to challenge the initial decisions of the MCA. I can reassure the noble Baroness that there is no desire to change the classification of food supplements or their status.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, there are considerable efforts afoot on the part of Pharma Cartel to pressure the Codex Alimentarius Commission of the United Nations to outlaw information on vitamins and other natural products on the pretext of consumer protection. Is not that a form of censorship? Is the Minister aware that there is a further plan afoot by Pharma Cartel to have vitamins registered as medicines and thereby subjected to product licences and disproportionate costs, thus eliminating them from chemists' shelves?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the UK's position has been quite clear: we do not believe that there should be limits on the vitamin and mineral content of supplements on anything other than safety considerations. We should like still to be available as food supplements those products which are classified as safe.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the review panels referred to in the MCA's consultation letter of 6th November will, indeed, consist of experts who not only know the products in question well, but who do not represent the huge pharmaceutical interests which bear down upon this issue?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord. It is considered that the review panel needs to have a majority of expert members who are chosen for their knowledge and experience. As a rule, they will be MCA medical and pharmaceutical assessors. Exceptionally, an external assessor would be enlisted if in-house expertise were not available.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Kimball set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Baroness Cumberlege to two hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture
3.7 p.m.
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball rose to call attention to the future of the agricultural industry against the background of falls in farm income and in output; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can still hear the words of that great Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, G. M. Treveleyan, from his English Social History, which he said to me on leaving the college some 50 years ago:
"Beware a town-bred electorate indifferent to the decay of rural life".
Those who no longer have a job in the rural economy do not stand outside the factory gates. They are not there for everybody to see. In the previous agricultural depression, and in the present unhappiness, they move away from the countryside and find work elsewhere, even abroad. However, this time round, there is a new factor which is even more worrying: there appears to be no desire among the children on so many of our small livestock holdings to carry on in the family farm.
The decay of the rural communities can be halted only by hope and enthusiasm for the future. It is not the purpose of this debate to hark backwards, but rather to look at the stark economic factors revealed by the catastrophic drop in farm income of some 33 per cent. in the past year. That figure was published last week.
The extent of the current crisis is well documented. The £120 million aid package announced last week will help some farmers' cash flow, but the industry is not looking for a quick fix. To restore confidence, the industry needs to know the future shape of the common agricultural policy, due to be agreed next year; the outcome of the negotiations of the World Trade Organisation, due to begin in January, and the effect of the further enlargement of the European Union with the first major countries joining in 2003.
I think we also need to reflect most carefully on the effect of the constitutional changes in the United Kingdom with regard to the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland assemblies. Agriculture is a delegated responsibility to each one of these assemblies. We must have a coherent United Kingdom policy with no distortion of competition or preferential treatment with regard to the delegated authorities.
The object must be to ensure that farmers are encouraged to farm productive land to its optimum potential while taking all reasonable measures to protect the rural and social environment. The real problem that faces us today is that of the so aptly named less favoured areas. There is a national desire to maintain a rural infrastructure in the hills. Therefore sheep and beef farming must remain viable. However, under today's circumstances they cannot survive by means of the market alone. The present system of headage payments for mature livestock merely encourages overstocking. Viable numbers of people are needed in the hills—farming, working and living—to maintain the infrastructure. There is merit in considering a "per working person" grant, to include the farmer and his wife and those who run the village shop and post office.
938
We have the model in the environmentally sensitive area forms of contract. That is the kind of support on which we shall have to build to maintain these less favoured areas.
It has to be recognised that it is impossible to draw a definite line between the less favoured areas and the productive lowland. A scheme of halfway support is necessary for these grey areas. As deputy president of the Countryside Alliance, I know that that organisation will be at the forefront of addressing the problems of rural people, particularly in the areas I have just mentioned.
The present uncertainty highlights the contribution that country sports and game rearing make to the agricultural environment. They are an essential part of the rural economy. The annual direct expenditure on country sports in any one year now exceeds £3.8 billion flowing into the rural economy. Fox-hunting alone delivers 15,895 full-time jobs with an expenditure of £243 million, as recorded by the Cobham research consultants. Particularly in the less favoured areas, those who live in the countryside need a diversity of business to cushion them from the present economic shocks. The value of the game market alone has grown from £12 million to some £18 million in the past year. The rural areas now sell £9 million-worth of venison. Alas and alack, the amount of fish that is sold commercially is extremely small, some £650,000-worth. We shall have to tackle that matter at a later stage.
If the remaining productive land is to meet its full potential, we must accept that the current CAP is protectionist. It seeks to preserve an outdated and costly farm structure. We should look carefully at the American example. Their Freedom to Farm Act phases out subsidies and leaves the individual farmer to run his own business. We need the same system here. We need a system that is simpler and less bureaucratic and a system in which modulation has no part to play. All producers should be treated equally without discrimination with regard to size.
Animal welfare considerations should be based solely on the best scientific advice that is available and should not be unilaterally imposed on the industry. The present lurch towards green policies must be curbed and watched. The new consultation process on better protection for SSSIs must not be used to impede economic agricultural development. A flexible funding package must be made available to encourage positive management of SSSIs. The regulatory burden grows. I refer to high vehicle taxation, fuel duties, meat inspection costs and now the danger of a pesticide tax being introduced. Farmers receive too small a proportion of the final selling price of the food they produce. A better return is the key to the success of the industry.
We need to keep as many people farming as possible. Those people should be entitled to a reasonable standard of living. It follows that we need to make British agriculture as profitable as possible. That is why the catastrophic drop in farm income at the beginning of this month is of such concern. I am certain that the revised figures to be issued at the end of January will

939
reveal an even greater drop in farm income. We need to put on record what Agenda 2000 should state in March on behalf of the industry. The Government must ensure that negotiations move in the right direction. Adequate funding must be made available for the transitional phase. A new system must be financed fairly within the European Union. It must also incorporate the need to develop non-food production uses of land; diversification is one of the most important elements in the countryside.
This debate is being held 25 years after we joined the European Economic Community. What has happened in the countryside in those 25 years? Dairy cow numbers have fallen by 22 per cent. We now kill one-quarter less of clean sheep. The figure was 20.6 million 25 years ago and it is 16 million now. The figure for beef slaughtering is down by one third from what it used to be. What is worst of all, 15 per cent. of our arable land is now set-aside. All these figures represent lost production and lost profits to the farming community. Today's debate occurs almost a year after the start of the campaign, "Keep Britain Farming". The farmers are not alone in their concern for the future of the countryside. They have the unqualified support of your Lordships' House. I am certain that the debate will show that. I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I appreciate that there are a large number of noble Lords in this House who know more about the agriculture industry than I do. However, I venture to say that there is no one in this House who is not conscious and indeed concerned about the crisis and the difficulties which face those involved in agriculture in this country today. Some sectors are perhaps more fortunate than others, although I dare say that all sectors face difficulty.
This consciousness, understanding and concern are shared by the Labour Government. That is demonstrated by the efforts they are making to offset as far as possible the difficulties that agriculture faces today. As regards what the Government have to do, and what they are expected to do, I ask noble Lords to consider that this Government have been in office just 18 months, whereas the previous government were in office for 18 years. Certainly the previous government had to face difficulties in agriculture during their time in office.
The Labour Government have not brought about the present difficulties. Mad cow disease, BSE, has been a national disaster. By the year 2001 the United Kingdom will have spent close to £4 billion on measures to combat the disease and to ensure that British beef is among the safest beef in the world to eat. The Labour Government have shown their concern, which has resulted in getting the ban lifted in Europe. Now it is hoped that farmers will be able to increase their sales abroad and perhaps move into a much better position than for some considerable time, certainly a lot longer than the 18 months during which Labour have been in power.
There are numerous reasons for the difficulties that are now faced by the agricultural industry. The matter of beef has been widely canvassed in this House, in the
940
other place and in the press over many years. There is over-production in pig farming. The collapse in Russia has had an effect. Now we have far too many pigs and prices have dropped. The same is true of sheep. The poultry industry is reasonably stable. Although it has its difficulties, the situation is not as bad as the other areas I have mentioned; nor is the situation as regards milk.
What have the Labour Government done? It should be acknowledged that over 18 months they have done a considerable amount. They have put £150 million into farming over the past 12 months. In addition, there is the further recently announced £120 million for hill farmers. The hill livestock compensatory allowance will account for £60 million; agri-monetary compensation £48.3 million; and the calf processing aid scheme will be extended until the end of the financial year, in March next year. The lifting of the beef ban was a marvellous achievement. For the Government to have succeeded in that took a lot of hard work. We have debated the matter previously.
A matter that causes me some concern is the demand for the ban on beef on the bone to be lifted, despite scientific evidence indicating that consumers will be at risk. It is somewhat irresponsible to call for the lifting of the ban at a time when scientists who are aware of the circumstances are saying that it still presents a danger.
Although farming is recognised as difficult and farmers will be at the sharp end, it is not only farmers who feel the impact of difficulties in the industry. My union represented people in food manufacture in areas where pies, sausages and cooked meats were being produced. All those industries are affected and, consequently, job losses occur. A chain of difficulty arises right across the board. I well remember in the 1980s representing milk workers who were employed in processing plants, milk-bottling, creameries and doorstep delivery (which we do not see too much of today). I remember when a big battle took place over the question of milk imports. We were worried about the health of people in this country. We did not feel that safety standards in milk production in Europe were as good as our own. The unions, in partnership with the Dairy Trades Federation, as it was known at that time, went to visit Commissioners in Europe, who were then my noble friend Lord Richard and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat. I received much more sympathy for my plea and that of the industry from my noble friend than I did from the noble Lord—who told me that there was nothing wrong with continental milk; his children were drinking it. That response still rings in my ears. The milk that was coming into this country was not being sold on the doorstep; it was discounted through supermarkets and could be bought at a discounted price. That damaged doorstep deliveries. People consumed much more milk when it was delivered to the door than when they collected it from supermarkets.
As a result, and partly as a consequence of other policies, British milk processors decided that they wished to sell more milk to supermarkets and the doorstep delivery almost disappeared. What then happened was that liquid milk consumption in this country was dramatically reduced. As a result, herds became smaller since there was no longer the same

941
demand. Large numbers of people who had delivered milk to British housewives the length and breadth of the country lost their jobs. The milk industry has since recovered slightly.
Another element has caused difficulty in the industry; namely, the break-up of the Milk Marketing Board. I am not saying that the situation should not have been changed—had the change been brought about in a sensible, stable manner. I regret the way in which it was introduced. It was the result of an obsession with deregulation rather than concern about practical transformation. Difficulties now seem to be arising, and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is examining the question of what is essentially a farmers' co-operative in the dairy industry.
I ask all noble Lords to have some measure of sympathy with what is happening and recognise the Government's attempts to offset those difficulties. I have no time to talk about reform of the CAP, but the Government are certainly tackling the issue. They wish to see the CAP reformed, to the benefit of the British farmer, and will do everything in their power to bring that about.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for introducing the debate. I go along with the noble Lord in almost all that he said. I did not necessarily follow him into the deepest recesses of his arguments. I received the slight impression that life would be improved if packs of foxhounds were allowed to roam over SSSIs. The main argument that he makes for the countryside and the strength of the agriculture industry is one that we must all support.
Last week, your Lordships were all enjoying yourselves, so that when I finally surfaced here on Thursday all my friends kept saying to me: "Tell me what has been going on in the House of Lords". I am afraid that I was not able to tell them. Not only was I not privy to the peculiar things that were happening in the Conservative Party, but I was not here. I was attending a conference in Rome—largely due to the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who allowed me to go when he might have gone there himself. I went as one of your Lordships' IPU delegates to a conference of the FAO on the subject of feeding the world in the future in a sustainable way. It was a heartening and interesting experience. When I returned, possibly I had not learnt a great many new things, but what I had learnt in the past had been greatly reinforced together with the feeling I had in my bones, having been brought up in a period when farming in this country was important and those of us who were brought up on farms were doing something really worth while.
All the contributors to the conference were more or less unanimous—with the possible exception of the Americans. There were only two Americans there so far as I could discover. There was an American delegate who was a member of Congress, who attended for half a day, and there was a keynote speaker. The keynote
942
speaker was very optimistic. He said that we could feed the world quite easily; there were no problems at all; it was just a question of delivering in the right way. He did not necessarily produce the machinery for doing that, but said there was no problem.
It is true that there is enough food for the world at present, but there are threats to food production all over the world. I strongly believe that at the heart of this debate is not so much what we should be doing in the rural parts of the country but that we should concentrate on the fact that it is up to every country to produce enough food to feed itself as far as it can and not to import more than it has to over large numbers of air-miles, thus depleting the world's resources and causing pollution. Food security is extremely important. I hope that as a result of this debate the Government will take to heart the necessity of understanding this basic truth about food and agriculture and its relationship to the countryside.
There is far too much talk about the necessity to restructure the agricultural industry. What does restructuring suggest to an agricultural community that is already in the depths of crisis? It suggests what the steelworkers, the coal-miners and the shipbuilders all experienced under Thatcherism. It means that this Government's mind-set is to allow a significant proportion of traditional family farming throughout the UK to disappear. If they allow it to go to the wall people will retreat from the land. Family farms will be sold. There will be more amalgamations and more agribusinesses. We shall not have the families there who, for generation on generation, have looked after these areas, be it in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, the Highlands or rural Wales. If that happens, then the great irony is that the very objectives on which there is all-party consensus in terms of CAP reform—that more funds should go into rural development, diversification, conservation and management of the habitat—will not be met and we shall not be able to develop the post-CAP reform to which the Government pay lip service.
There is a need to concentrate on support for agriculture. If we once manage to get that into our heads, and the Government manage to get it into their hearts and souls, there are some Members of your Lordships' House who sit on the Government Benches who understand all this and whom we can trust entirely. I very much look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Carter, respond to the debate, not just because he will tell us what the Government have to say—which I look forward to hearing with interest but not necessarily a great deal of hope—but because I know that he himself cares passionately for the countryside and knows a great deal about it.
Farmers need to produce food and other products of cultivation, to care for the landscape and its wildlife, to provide a sound economic base and core employment for the rural economy and to form a stable backbone in the rural community. That can in part be done by supporting smallholders and small farmers. At present 80 per cent. of subsidies go to 20 per cent. of farmers. It is not sensible to give very large subsidies to very large farmers. I concede that all farmers need subsidies these days, but they should be tapered according to scale

943
of production. Subsidies should be more equitably and usefully distributed among the farming community so that it is not too hard-pressed economically but able to produce good quality food in a civilised way. A much higher proportion of subsidies should be for environmental activities.
If we want healthy, home-grown food, a flourishing rural economy and an attractive landscape, complete with wildlife, family farmers will produce that as long as there is a profit to be made from producing food. They will produce the rural infrastructure which is needed if the countryside is to have services, such as post offices, shops and rural transport. The existence of those services requires that there be a countryside population which is able to afford what is offered and which can go on living in the countryside and that the sons and daughters of that population will go on living there—a point stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball.
It is not any particular reform that is needed, although I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Mackie and others will talk about reforms. The need is to try to get the Government to understand that agriculture is the heart of the countryside and that we cannot for ever rely on trade from abroad, which may produce food for our people but which at the same time ruins our farming industry and the countryside. If we can instil that feeling in the Government's heart, this debate will have been worthwhile.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, it is perhaps worth pointing out that 11 of the speakers this afternoon are hereditary Peers who care passionately about the countryside and those who live and work in it.
It is exactly three weeks since we last cantered over the problems facing this country's agricultural industry. It was generally agreed in that debate that Britain's farmers are facing the worst crisis in living memory. Some of my neighbours have yet to finish their wheat harvest—and we are now under two inches of snow. That is grim, my Lords, grim. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for introducing the debate and I agree with him that it is to the future that we must now look.
I must declare an interest as someone who tries to farm in the Scottish Borders. In the previous debate I made a plea for further investment into research and development for alternative crops, particularly those that can be used for bio-fuels. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, told the House that £420,000 was currently being spent on research and development. I am afraid I believe that that sum is ridiculously low, especially as North Sea oil will not last for ever. Many valuable renewable resources can be derived from agricultural crops. Some sectors of the European chemicals and energy industries increasingly rely on vegetable oils, fibres, starch, cellulose and sugars derived from established and novel agricultural crops. Increasing the use of these renewable raw materials will help to reduce the consumption of finite resources of mineral origin and benefit the environment by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. It will also improve the overall carbon balance.
944
It is imperative that non-food crops are available. For this, a framework must be introduced which ensures that non-food crops are a viable option for agricultural businesses, processors and consumers. Until recently the key driver for the growth of non-food crops was set-aside. Over the past 10 years there has been considerable public funding, coupled with private funding, running into millions of ecus, of projects which have improved the economic and environmental performance of non-food crops and their derivatives.
The European Renewable Raw Materials Association estimates that 5 per cent. of arable land in Europe is used for producing crops for industrial markets. Set-aside has not been the only driver which has encouraged the development of non-food crops, but it has certainly boosted the speed with which the sector has developed. However, the CAP reform proposals published by the European Commission ignore this successful development and have cast doubt over the whole future of set-aside. This doubt has been felt throughout the industry as further investment in plant, machinery and multi-annual crops is now very much in question. This suggests that set-aside is an unsatisfactory basis for support as the rate varies annually.
Naturally, this does not inspire confidence, particularly when planting multi-annual crops such as short rotation coppice. Its long term future is indeed uncertain. Agenda 2000 makes no provision whatsoever for the development of non-food crops on land which is not eligible under the arable area payments scheme. Surely this is a terrible oversight. It is vital, therefore, to consider a new support regime to provide long-term, robust measures which could qualify for WTO green-box status.
A new approach to the development of a non-food crops industry is a must, driven by a recognition of the economic, environmental and social benefits of this sector rather than dependence on set-aside production. The development of a robust industry which will deliver high quality and tailor-made raw materials for use by industry and the energy sector will clearly help the European Union to develop in a sustainable way. Non-food crops will make a strong contribution to the objective of sustainable development by creating employment and revenue opportunities in rural locations and providing obvious environmental benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing biodiversity in the rural landscape.
As Agenda 2000 fails to make specific provision for non-food crops it will not be profitable to plant new species for non-food use and biomass crops. If this is the case the European Union's agricultural, chemical and biomass industry will lose the market share that it has built up successfully over the past decade. Considerable investment will be wasted or, worse still, handed to our third world country competitors to capitalise on Europe's short-sightedness. Surely it must be madness.
To ensure that Europe can continue to benefit from the industry that it has developed we need a policy framework specifically designed for industrial and energy crop advancement in the long term which will allow non-food crops to compete with mainstream

945
supported crops, provide a level of support that reflects the range of environmental and social benefits associated with non-food crop production, encourage a focused and co-ordinated approach between different departments within the European Commission and, finally, encourage investment and growth and enhance the competitive strength of the European Union in renewable production, research, technology and application.
Last March Commissioner Fischler said that,
"when we talk about agriculture as a supplier of raw materials for industry, particularly for energy production, this means above all an opportunity to replace non-renewable resources with renewable agricultural products".
I believe passionately that he is right. More must be done, and urgently. We surely owe it to future generations, not only of farmers but to future inhabitants of this country and indeed of the European Union as a whole.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for introducing this debate in such an admirable way. I declare an interest as a farmer in arable and lowland beef farming in the north of England. I share entirely the concerns that have been expressed in your Lordships' House over the past few weeks about the current plight of agriculture. It is by far the most serious situation that I have ever known in the industry and it affects almost everybody within it. However, I should like to concentrate this afternoon on one group of farmers who cause me especially great anxiety. I refer to the smaller farmers, mostly tenants, who occupy land that is within the less favoured area or others whose land is slightly too good to qualify for assistance under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances. In the north of England we call them "dales farmers". When I use that phrase I intend it to embrace similar farmers in the west of England, Wales and other parts of the country.
Generally speaking, these farmers do not have the buffer enjoyed by owner occupiers; they have rent to pay. Most of them rely on farming for the vast majority of their income. I believe that they are in need of particular help and the sympathy of the Government. I suggest to the Government three matters that I believe deserve their sympathy. First, I should like the Government to have another look at extending the area of land that is covered by the environmentally sensitive area scheme. I have raised this in your Lordships' House previously and I hope that I shall be forgiven for raising it again. I was the instigator of that scheme about 12 years ago. It is tailor-made for those remote dales farmers who now face the greatest difficulty.
The scheme has three great advantages. It is already accepted by Brussels, so there is no need for a lot of new legislation to extend it. It is environmentally sensitive, prohibiting the use of pesticides and chemicals and ensuring that stone walls and barns are maintained. It also ensures that wild flowers in hay meadows can seed before the hay crop is cut. Above all, it does not
946
encourage further oversupply and thus add to the surpluses that have bedevilled our agriculture. I hope that the Government will look again at this matter.
Secondly, I hope that the Government will not make matters worse by changing what is already working well. After I left the department in 1987, I spoke in the other place on agriculture very rarely, but on one occasion I seriously questioned the actions of the previous government in scrapping the powers of the Milk Marketing Board. I have a good deal of sympathy with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, on this topic. I came of that generation which always saw the Milk Marketing Board as the saviour of the dales milk producers who were being beaten into the ground by the big dairies in the 1930s. The policy of the Milk Marketing Board was to adopt a universal price regardless of transport costs, but that is all behind us. The universal price remains, but the MMB does not. We now have the successor organisation Milk Marque, albeit with less powers than its predecessor, to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred. That, too, is being picked over by the Director-General of Fair Trading. I hope that the Government will not allow further changes to the arrangements for marketing milk that may drive out more and more of the smaller remote milk producers in the dales. They are the first ones to go if the present arrangements for marketing milk are drastically changed.
The third point I raise concerns me very much. I refer to the effect of the Government's proposals to relax milk quotas by 4 per cent. after 2000 and to abolish them by 2006. Noble Lords will recall that when milk quotas were introduced in 1984 there was a huge amount of anguish. At that time, the anguish was directed as much at me as anyone else. Unlike most of my colleagues in Europe, I had the good fortune never to have anything thrown at me. I believe that the German Minister was burnt seven times in effigy! It was an extremely uncomfortable time. But the fact is that milk quotas have been invaluable. First, they have given milk producers a valuable asset. Secondly, by their very nature they have curtailed the creation of more and more unsaleable and unmarketable surpluses. Thirdly, and above all, they have allowed milk producers to get a fair price and therefore have not encouraged a number of highly efficient, large producers to continue to expand and create more and more unsaleable and uneatable surpluses.
I take some pride in the fact that milk quotas have been so successful. In 1984 farmers hated them, but now I believe that they like them very much. Sometimes I wish that they had said so at the time. I am told that as regards our New Zealand arrangements, the United Kingdom is currently 5 per cent. over-supplied with milk. I can only believe that the abolition of milk quotas will again encourage greater and greater surpluses and, most frightening, will put intolerable burdens on the small milk producers on marginal land who, as I have explained, caused me the greatest anxiety. There are bleak times ahead for the small tenants in the dales and on the hills. I hope that the Government will take note of this danger and that they will not make a bad situation infinitely worse.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Jopling, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Kimball, for introducing this debate and to declare an interest. I am a farmer in Cumbria—although I understand that it is customary to declare an interest where one is making money.
It is agreed throughout the Chamber that in the past 18 months we have seen agriculture in a parlous condition. The reasons for that are varied. I believe that some of the reasons can be laid at the door of the previous government, of which I was proud to be a member; undoubtedly, some of the reasons should be laid at the door of the present Government on the Benches opposite; some of it is to do with the weather, and some is simply "events, dear boy".
Perhaps I may point out two particular matters that bear thinking about. First, the Government's policy about exchanges has had a very damaging impact on agricultural prices. That has come at a time when the other factors—some of which we have heard about already this afternoon—have been militating against farming. The attitude towards exchanges has been driven by the Treasury's wish to save money. I dare say that it may find at the end of the day that, in terms of tax forgone and tax repaid, it may well now be worse off than it would have been had the prices been adjusted. That is of small consolation in rural Britain.
Secondly, it is important that, in the face of the setbacks that British agriculture has experienced, in future we make every effort to regain markets which have been lost. It is always easier to lose markets than it is to get them back. I believe that on my upland farm we have been successful with our cull ewes this year. We sold them for £2.90 each. That was before one deducts auctioneer's commission and transport. That is a measure of the kinds of difficulties that are being faced in the uplands.
In my opening comments I focused on some points of detail and, of course, detail is important. But it is also at least as important, in the context of the world that we are now in, that we also look at the wider picture. After all, what is the point of farming at the end of the 20th century? What is the point of the countryside? I believe that it is necessary to be clear about that because it is only by doing so that we can have a policy framework that will enable us to have the kind of fanning and countryside that we want in the next millennium.
It is quite interesting to turn to Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome, which is the text on which the entire common agriculture policy is written. The common agricultural policy is quite rightly widely derided, but Article 39—I do not propose to bore your Lordships by quoting it—spells out in terms what is the purpose of the policy and why. Against that background it has been an effective basis for a policy albeit one which, in my opinion, is now out of date and, in a number of material respects, misguided.
I am sure that there is agreement throughout the House that in such areas it is not the Government's business to run agriculture in any kind of hands-on manner. But at the same time, because of our history
948
and the circumstances of the world in which we live, agricultural policy impacts very heavily on farmers and agricultural practice. I do not believe that that is going to go away, not merely because it is the way in which things are done now, but because the nature of the linkages that exist between the aspirations of all kinds of people and what goes on in the countryside and on farms are such that without some kind of government involvement we shall not achieve the kind of things that I am sure everyone in this Chamber would like to see.
For many years the framework of the politics in which agriculture operates has not been national politics. We have only to go back to the great burning issues associated with the Corn Laws to appreciate that British agriculture cannot be isolated from events outside these islands. That has merely been underscored by our membership of the Community. When one looks at recent developments in the Community and the reform process that is under way of the common agricultural policy, it seems to me that there is a very strong case for saying that the Agenda 2000 initiative and the World Trade Organisation talks are as much symptoms of what is happening in the wider world as being themselves engines for change.
We are living in a world which is changing very fast. It is different from what we have been used to. Society is changing and it is different from what we are used to. Technology is changing and enables things to be done which were completely unthinkable a few years ago. After all, is agriculture any more primarily about food production? I personally believe that it should be. It is particularly regrettable that, for example, certain aspects of the quota system have meant that as regards milk production the capacity for milk processing has had to close because it has not been possible to acquire milk because of the corset put on the milk supply by the existence of quota, in order to produce products for which there was a market in the wider world, but for which the basic raw materials cannot be obtained.
There is general agreement that the environment plays an important part in agricultural policy. But how does one implement that? Should there be cross-compliance? How does one deal with farms which have SSSIs on them? There must be severe restraints put on husbanding that particular land. What about forestry? Those of us who live in the countryside are encouraged, on the one hand, to plant trees and on the other there is enormous opposition at the same time against planting large-scale coniferous forests, which we are told by those who want to buy the timber, is probably the timber for which there is the greatest market and which can underpin the largest number of jobs. I could go on, but I do not see any particular point in adding to these illustrations.
I was extremely pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Jopling comment about the plight facing the small farmer. I would like to add my name to the points that he made. But the crux of much of what is happening in the context of farming at present seems to me to hinge on that and the important point made by my noble friend Lord Kimball about modulation. The inevitable economic response to agricultural policy and prices that we have at the moment is for small farms to be subsumed into large farms. It is an essential part of the

949
policy proposed by the Commission that the economic benefits of that, which is the only basis on which such farms can survive, will be eroded by the application of the principles of modulation. It is economic nonsense and it is discriminatory against this country.
When thinking about the remarks that I wished to make today, I suddenly realised that in one sense I might have started in the wrong place. As we all know, most of the population in this country live in towns. They are the taxpayers. Through their taxes they help to support farming in the countryside. In looking forward to the next millennium, and the kind of agriculture that we shall have then, it is important to take into account what those who pay many of the bills of the countryside would like to see.
We must address two important issues. First, what kind of farming industry and countryside do we wish to see in the next century? Secondly, we must concentrate on how we achieve that. Bankrupt farmers, be they owner-occupiers or tenants, cannot deliver. In this country we tend to sneer at poor peasant farmers on the Continent. If the politics of agriculture create a standard of living in the farming community that puts our farmers on a par with them, not merely does it not sound to me to be consistent with general policies enunciated by the Government about the level at which wages should be, it also seems a guarantee that they will not be able to deliver. We must ensure that the farming industry's personnel has a standard of living equitable with that of the rest of society.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend's Motion draws our attention to the future of the farming industry. There is a tendency—I am guilty of it—to concentrate on the miseries of today. That is helpful only if such examination, like Advent, leads us to look constructively to the future. To that end I have a shopping list of questions that I, as a farmer, wish the Minister to try to answer.
The overriding question is similar to that asked by my noble friends Lord Kimball and Lord Inglewood. What are we, as farmers, trying to achieve? Should we aim to have an efficient farming industry capable of competing in the world market? If, as I hope, the answer is yes, there are a number of problems to be faced. The first is the hardy perennial of a level playing field, which I accept cannot truly ever exist. But when the Americans tried to compete worldwide through "freedom to farm", they had to bale their farmers out to the tune of 8 billion dollars. It poses a problem. I hope that the Minister will agree that that problem is his to solve, not mine as a farmer.
Secondly, the Government must accept that to aim for efficient agriculture is by no means universally accepted. Many people have idyllic ideas of small family farms with buttercups and daisies. I am sorry to have to inform them that such a view cannot lie side by side with an efficient agriculture. I and farmers must adapt for the future. A farm of 1,000 ewes and 100 beef cattle, let us say, is not a large enough unit to survive.
950
My answer is somewhat different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, but somewhat parallel to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jopling on marketing. If we co-operate on both selling and working, and accept that such units must be part-time, there is a future. I am much encouraged by the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in that direction. I hope that he will be more successful than I have been in trying to encourage my neighbours in that direction. Sad to say, I found it very much easier to achieve on the larger farms in Oxfordshire than in the smaller units in Anglesey where the need is far greater. However, putting that into action rests primarily on the farmers and not necessarily the Government.
If we are to have efficient agriculture, the Government must be careful not to make us less competitive by imposing punitive regulations and taxes—for instance, on health and safety, the environment, protection as regards nitrate zones, bird and pest destruction and a possible pesticide tax. That is the quid pro quo of cheap food, which the housewife wants, efficient farming and coming into line with the GATT regulations. However, it is inevitable that if we go down the efficiency path some farmers will never be able to be viable however hard they try.
I would have liked the Tangemann plan, as I know would my noble friend Lord Middleton. But some form of retirement plan is essential. I hope that the Minister—I know that he has thought about such a scheme—will encourage his colleagues to consider it again. I know that the Conservatives disliked it, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will remember, I did not always agree with everything that my party did on agriculture.
As patron of the Agricultural Secretaries and Administrators I wish to draw to the Minister's attention the difficulty of getting colleges to find sufficient places, mainly because of lack of local authority funding, to train those people despite the fact that the demand for the finished product (if I may call them that) far outweighs the supply. I hope that the Minister will allow me to send him a full brief on the subject.
Finally, I am confident that British farmers will survive the present cut prices. Short-term payouts are not what I really want, happy though I was to receive some as a gesture, as being less favoured. But I am very much aware of the saying that you should live as though you were to die tomorrow and yet farm as though you would live forever. I wish to know—not necessarily for myself but for those who follow after me—where we are going; and that the Government will ensure that the playing field is not made up of totally unnecessarily rutted fields by ignoring the points that I and other noble Lords have raised.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimball for initiating the debate and for his thoughtful speech. I declare an interest as one who has been for a long time closely involved in farming. I do not need to be reminded that the current agricultural recession is painful.

951
The problems facing UK farmers received a good airing only three weeks ago in the debate so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. There is little new, other than official figures released underlining the concern shown in November. We are told that there has been a fall in farmers' incomes over the past two years of 63 per cent. There has also been a drop in the average income of hill farmers this year to £2,400. I do not have to remind noble Lords that a farm worker's minimum annual wage currently at the lowest grade is £8,600.
I do not think that the Government need reminding of that. On top of other measures described in November by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, today, the Government have produced the £120 million aid package slanted, quite rightly, towards the hill farmers. They are trying to lift the BSE restrictions and are understandably making slow headway in the face of an EC protective wall.
My remarks, therefore, are directed with diffidence towards my fellow farmers. There have always been ups and downs in farm profitability. But those fluctuations have occurred in a steady downward trend in incomes in real terms over the past 25 years. The causes are well known in the industry. Farmers are well aware, too, that an acceleration of that long-term downward trend was inevitable once the EC took the road, far too late in my opinion, towards reform of the CAP. Farmers have seen Agenda 2000 on the horizon and the eventual WTO-led and enlargement-led future reduction, or at best retargeting, of subsidies.
It is now more than seven years since sub-committee D, which I had the great privilege to chair for six years, produced its report on the MacSharry CAP reform proposals. Our conclusions have stood the test of time very well. I should find it difficult to improve on this extract from the advice we gave seven years ago:
"Reform of our price system will mean that farmers will have to increase their efficiency. Some measure of adjustment aid is essential. Such aid must be transitional; acceptable under GATT; fixed in quantum; not re-negotiable; and simple to administer".
Any farmer who considers that the direct compensatory payments that we have received since the 1992 CAP reform are anything other than adjustment aid and other than ephemeral in nature is short-sighted.
Farmers are well aware of the long-term trend and are adjusting. What has taken them aback has been the sudden combination of the shrinkage of world markets, BSE, low prices and the state of the pound, coupled with very bad weather which has led to the current downturn.
What does one say to UK farmers who see in the future a kind of Darwinian struggle for survival—the survival of the fittest? Perhaps one should remind them that Darwin understood that natural selection could operate only because of the inherent variability of individual organisms and the inheritable nature of those variations. Just as useful variations in nature may give a competitive edge in the battle for survival, variations in farming attitudes and methods may be needed to do likewise.
952
Farm units will need to be bigger to be viable. Already, four out of every 10 farmers are part-timers. If smaller occupiers are to stay on their farms—and that is an extremely desirable social objective—then more of them must look for other sources of income. Therefore, as has been said so often, it is all the more important that non-farming economic activity in rural areas should be encouraged. That is something which can be facilitated through EC policies and by our own government policies.
In these days of food security and more affluent consumers, there is, as was pointed out in this year's Massey Ferguson lecture, a changing pattern of demand for high quality, safe, convenient and attractively-processed food. At present, food processing doubles the value of produce at the farm gate. That is before the costs of distribution and sales. Are there perhaps opportunities there for farmers to process their own products further down the food chain? If so, that could perhaps be performed by producer groups.
Farmers are not good at marketing and there is huge room for improvement in that field and for co-operative quality control and selling.
There must also be a drive for markets abroad. I wonder what happened to Food for Britain which was established by the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, when he was a Minister. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will remind us about Food for Britain and the point that it has reached.
It is perhaps significant that the most successful marketing initiatives have been in relation to products which are outside any CAP regime; for example, fruit, vegetable and poultry. One is tempted to speculate as to how much better would have been our marketing performance had their been no CAP support for the other commodities over the past 20 years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, reminded us, there is scope, too, for the non-farm use of farmland, whether it is for bed and breakfast, crops for industrial use, wind farms or whatever. Finally, it is plain that not all farmers are situated so that they can evolve and diversify. The purists will say that they will be eliminated under the harsh laws of economics. If that is so, there must be some kind of safety net for those failing in the struggle for survival.
If the rug is pulled out too sharply, the social costs will be heavy. In that regard, I find myself, as is very often the case, in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. For example, as was urged by my noble friend Lord Wade in the November debate, there must be devised policies and methods whereby farmers can purchase their retirement to ease their passage. Time does not allow me to discuss various schemes which have been mooted. Support, preferably outside the farm budget, must be available for farmers, particularly in the uplands, who would otherwise leave the land. The public are well aware of strong social and environmental reasons for keeping a cared-for countryside and they must be prepared to pay for it.

953
The UK industry is well placed to flourish again, as it has after every downturn that I can remember. My fellow farmers have the wit to adapt and survive. They just need to use it and use it I am sure they will.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, this afternoon, I felt that I could go home. He said all that I wanted to say and said it so much better than I could. Therefore, I shall not go over that ground again.
I was pleased to see that the debate refers to "the agricultural industry" because it is now an industry with far greater tentacles than a business. There is the processing industry, and village and rural life is totally dependent on farming. It is now a very complex industry which needs to be treated with care.
I must report that in Northern Ireland there is an even more disastrous situation than elsewhere in Great Britain, for a very simple reason. The agricultural industry was weakened by the BSE crisis and the embargo on exports because in Northern Ireland 60 per cent. of the beef was exported outside the UK whereas the figure for Great Britain was about 9 per cent. Therefore, that embargo weakened the industry and left us less able to withstand the disaster in relation to sheep and pig prices about which your Lordships will know.
The result of that is that the industry in Northern Ireland is in a parlous state. Small farmers have amassed a vast amount of debt—approximately £500 million with the banks at the moment, which is all against their land values. They have an extremely large indebtedness to their feed suppliers. There are many in the pig industry whose indebtedness to their feed suppliers is as much as the value of their stock.
We have another problem in Northern Ireland; namely, that the average age of farmers is over 50. It looks as though their children, their sons, will not go into farming. They have all been well educated; they are ambitious; and they just do not see a future in farming. We may be faced with a rural desert with all the consequences which would flow from that. That is unthinkable because, as we all know, we must have agriculture. It would be quite ridiculous to have a wasteland, perhaps even in trees. We must do something about it.
I have not yet heard that there has been any attempt to think through the position that farming is in now or how it should be developed in the future. That is an extremely difficult and complex matter but some attempt must be made in different ways. For instance, it may be that some farms have no chance of success. But there should be a scheme whereby farmers can retire without going bankrupt. Their present option is to go bankrupt and then retire in poverty.
Some thought should be given to how the industry has been distorted over the years by the various grant systems, the CAP and so forth, which have led to great trouble. Also, are we being sensible as a nation to impose standards of husbandry on farmers when the same standards do not apply abroad? For instance, the
954
cost of rearing a pig has been increased by around £5 a head through the various measures introduced to husbandry. The measures are commendable but they are not in place in any other country. I understand that the Armed Forces import foreign pigs for bacon. I wonder what difference £5 a head would make to their acquiring food from abroad which is not raised under the same standards.
We must consider all these matters very seriously if we are to make any sense of the future. We must find a way forward in helping agriculture to thrive. I believe it can thrive, but not with all the distortions, extra costs and other problems which have arisen.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Monkbretton: My Lords, I, too, should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Kimball for timing this debate so well.
I understand that net farm incomes—according to the NFU's figures—fell 49 per cent. last year. That figure excludes the cost of family labour whereas the Ministry figure includes it. It is perhaps more graphic to look at what has happened over the past two years. I understand that we are likely to find that net farm incomes have actually gone down by 80 per cent. One may well ask in those circumstances where we are going.
Agricultural output is falling. Bearing in mind agriculture's import-saving role, sooner or later that will impact on our balance of payments, as indeed will falling manufactures. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, was absolutely right in saying that the young in particular are being forced off the land. That bodes ill for the future. If we are not careful we will be heading towards the abandonment of land and with it damage to the farming infrastructure. That will also badly affect the environment. Not all is lost yet but the situation is becoming extremely serious. There is an urgency about short-term measures and also about medium and long-term measures.
As my noble friend, Lord Inglewood, said, the most urgent requirement relates to interest rates and the high pound. That is problem enough for manufacturers but it is worse for British agriculture, which has to compete against lower priced imports and the fall in value of European Union aid. I must express criticism in relation to the interest rate policies since May 1997. Was it necessary to increase interest rates so much? Only the United States grasped and acted upon the need to fight off depression by reducing interest rates. The Bundesbank—I noticed that yesterday in The Times it was castigated and referred to as the "Blundersbank"—and Europe together generally did nothing to help those objectives. But we actually increased our rates, which was even worse. We must find a way of reducing interest rates or manufacturing industry will rust and agriculture will abandon land to weeds.
Perhaps I may turn to other more specific urgent agricultural matters. The need for an equal footing was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stanley and I applaud that. We ought to apply UK standards to imported production. At the moment that is often not the case. And of course we should end the ban on beef on the bone.

955
The Government might consider whether they should be taking steps to try to halt the rapid demise of livestock auction marts. My noble friend Lord Jopling referred to the poorer agricultural areas not quite within "less favoured areas". That may apply to areas such as the Sussex high Weald. It is in such areas that the shoe will pinch badly.
Perhaps I should declare at this stage that I come from Sussex and that, although I am partially retired, I still have some interest in farming. I hope the Government will bend their efforts to fund the Countryside Commission's high Weald land management initiative among other cases of that kind. I believe it will help. Also, in relation to Sussex, there would be a great deal of virtue in improving the environmentally sensitive area payments to retain grazing on the Sussex Downs and other sensitive landscape habitats.
In relation to medium and long-term objectives—I hardly dare mention this—I should like to say a word about milk, with which I have always been involved. The number of farmers ceasing milk production last year was 6 per cent. That is a high figure when we consider that the norm is somewhere between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. I understand that we are the only country where farm gate prices have actually fallen recently. It is not only the high pound that caused that. While producer prices fell, the dairies increased their profits by 40 per cent or so. UK farm gate prices are now so low that some farming industry experts feel that milk production may well contract.
I wish to draw attention to the notoriously large difference between UK farm gate and retail prices and the fact that it is again on the increase. Action is required to find ways to equalise the imbalance in bargaining power between primary producers and the buyers and retailers. That applies not only in dairying. It may be that British dairying cannot compete against New Zealand; but we can compete extremely well with the rest. The opportunity to do this should not, I feel quite sure, be lost. We could do it if we do not make a mess of it, and I sincerely hope that we do our best. We do not want to lose this opportunity.
There are many other matters I could mention, but I shall leave them to others. I hope that they do raise them and that the few points I have made have been constructive.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for his initiation of the debate and also for the excellent way in which he opened it.
Everyone has recognised—it is so throughout the whole country—that the dramatic fall in farm income is estimated, as my noble friend has just said, to be over 70 per cent. in real terms over the past two years. It has been described as the worst situation since the 1930s, and we all know that the morale among many farming families is particularly low, especially among those small farmers who were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jopling.
956
I, too, declare an interest as a farmer and as an ex-farmer leader. As your Lordships can imagine, during my 20 years in the European Parliament I have been fairly close to the development of the common agricultural policy. I would say to my noble friend Lord Jopling that, yes, I look back to the days when we were together in 1984 and the difficulty we had in the presentation to farmers of a very radical change at that time moving towards milk quotas. He rightly said that they had been difficult to accept, but nevertheless they had been the saviour of many smaller farmers who at least had something to latch on to. It sounds rather like a cliché, when we are in the middle of this debate, to say that British agriculture is such an extremely important industry both nationally and internationally. We know that, but it is important in terms of food security, both in quantity and quality.
Food security is something of which we hear little these days. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned it himself when he recognised that we have been through difficult times and it is therefore important to emphasise it. It is also important for the part that it plays in maintaining our rural and national wellbeing and also for the key role that agriculture plays in the conservation of the countryside and its environment. If the environment is to be conserved then it is essential that we have a thriving farming business. We all know that a depressed agriculture cannot carry out its traditional role of caring for the countryside. A neighbouring farmer friend of mine some years ago used to say quite often to me, "I know how to farm a farm and I know how to rob a farm; and if I start to rob it it will take me 10 years to do it". I hope to God that we are not in that position today and see the start of a run-down of our rural areas.
The facts themselves are well rehearsed. Financial pressure is forcing the industry to seek significantly lower cost structures. Yet we import so many of our products: 83 per cent. of our seeds that we put back into our farms; 66 per cent. of our machinery; and 44 per cent. of our fertilisers, to name but a few of the inputs, at a cost which is much higher than that of our competing producers in other countries. Yet that market, as we know, has been virtually wiped out because of the distortion of currency values and the volatile world market as a whole—together of course with the disastrous BSE crisis. That has cost us over £4 billion, £1.42 billion of which has come from the European Union.
Of course I acknowledge the enormous problems facing Ministers and I appreciate the recent injection to help the pig industry and to help some of the farmers in the hills and uplands who have falling livestock prices. I am sure that is a point which will be well emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. However, Government have a very crucial role to play if farming is to be competitive. That can be achieved by avoiding the imposition of costs that have no justification in logic or science; by reducing external costs where possible; by minimising unfair competition by insisting on standards of welfare and food safety that apply in the United Kingdom applying equally in the countries from which we import; by requiring retailers to give consumers

957
freedom of choice through clear labelling and by stimulating the development and acceptance of science and technology, including biotechnology.
The Government also have the responsibility for claiming from Europe our entitlement under agri-monetary arrangements. Therefore I ask Ministers why we failed to obtain the full recompense in 1997 and 1998. In 1997 under the European rules we would have been allowed to take £420 million to compensate United Kingdom farmers against the strength of the pound. This year the amount available has been £280 million and next year it will be £140 million. Half—I repeat half—of all this financial assistance has been available from the European Budget and, I stress, without the need for the United Kingdom to contribute one single penny—and that at a time when our industry faces insurmountable difficulties, with farm incomes at their lowest for many a year. And all the Government had to do was ask.
Over the past two years the Government have only required £67 million of EU agri-money assistance and yet £350 million has been available. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will tell me that of course we have to pay the rebate, but if he disputes my figures I would ask him to go to Brussels with me tomorrow and meet the Commissioner who emphasised this and gave me those figures only yesterday. So let us take whatever is available; let us take advantage of it. Are Ministers aware of the history of agri-money compensation to the United Kingdom? The United Kingdom is the only country that has not fully subscribed to EU assistance when the need was so great and so obvious. It gets worse. In 1997 and 1998 United Kingdom farmers have been eligible for £158 million of compensation for loss of earnings from direct payments. The Government have only asked for £11.5 million of that amount of money: that is a short-fall of £146.5 million. In 1999 £70 million of additional EU agri-money will be available to United Kingdom farmers. Some would say that it is far too little, far too late; but farmers need it and they deserve it. So are the Government going to ask for it?
I should like to finish by asking: how are we to face up to the reality of 11 countries deciding that their money should be in parallel—countries that are just on the outside of this great country of ours? As we know, United Kingdom farmers are facing this crisis. They may not be concerned either way as to what happens, but will the Government's failure to allow payment in euros to those who want it from the 1st January next year inhibit the commercial influence in the European Union and perhaps more widely? Are we to be further marginalised on the fringe of Europe? How will that impact therefore on an already traumatised agricultural industry?
Changes in the common agricultural policy and in the agri-money system will all add to the pressures on United Kingdom farmers and, of course, the impact of the European Monetary Union could be greater on agri-business than on other economic sectors due to our dependence on the European Union for financial support. Surely, therefore, our collective aims should be
958
to improve the position of British farmers and to put agriculture at the forefront of civilised and acceptable progress.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Christopher: My Lords, I acknowledge the courtesy of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, but I am less sure that I am as grateful to him as some other noble Lords because, when, back in the summer, I thought that agriculture would be something to which I could turn my attention, I had not bargained for how I would feel on the first occasion when I rose to speak upon it. My qualifications for speaking are very limited and I shall not dwell upon them. However, I hope that my remarks will be seen in a modest way as complementary to the extremely good speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Cooke.
Eighteen years ago I deliberately moved back into the countryside to the heart of a village surrounded by four large farms. It is interesting to study what has happened to them over the past years. One is now substantially set-aside or part of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, with a lot of birds but hardly anything else. Another has been, in industrial terms, asset stripped. I do not complain about the farmer in that respect; indeed, that is what the market told him to do. The land and the woodlands were sold off separately; the farmhouse was sold off separately; the farm cottages and buildings were sold off separately, including a magnificent Victorian Shire stud stables; and a pedigree Jersey herd (which had not bought in any stock for 30 years) was sold off as, indeed, was the milk quota. It seems to me that that process is being repeated throughout the country and, in effect, a fine farm is no more a farm. A pedigree Sussex suckler herd has gone from a neighbouring farm—I cannot bring myself to ask where—and it is now dedicated to horse grazing. Indeed, only one of the four farms is still functioning as a farm.
As I see the general situation, it seems to me that the root cause of a great deal of this is in fact the CAP. It is consuming a half of the European Union budget and the best thing that can be said about it at present is that at least the flaws in it are now being recognised by almost everyone. I begin to wonder whether in fact we might be better off without it. There are damaging consequences involved. Of the 25 million farmers in the original six member states who farmed, only six million are left. In the UK, the number of farmers has halved over the same period. A good example of the causes of this was the conversion of milk quotas into a commodity. That has brought about exactly the same effect upon farmers as the effect upon British motor and truck-tyre manufacturers when tyres became a commodity.
To the extent that I understand it, the agri-environmental measures under Agenda 2000 will certainly not replace the CAP. One economist has put them as representing no more than 5 per cent. of the budget. I would be interested to know how far 5 per cent. could be expanded to avoid—and I hesitate in these times to use this phrase—"level playing field charges".

959
However, what modest solutions might there be? One speaker has already referred to marketing. A Farmers Weekly leader recently put it very bluntly, stating:
"UK farmers can no longer afford to be an industry that buys retail and sells wholesale".
Three leading supermarkets control more than half of all the food and drink sold in this country. The Office of Fair Trading is reviewing what has happened, but the Meat and Livestock Commission says that the margins since 1995 have pretty well doubled in favour of the retailers.
I believe that farmers must seriously explore the opportunities for collaborative marketing. A good example is to he found in Lincolnshire with the Lincolnshire Quality Beef and Lamb Marketing Group. It goes for quality but not quality in terms of washed carrots and clingfilm-wrapped beef; it is getting an average market premium of 12 per cent.
Another older example which was, incidentally, introduced by an Australian in 1920, is the Kent Wool Growers. There were 75 farmers in 1920 with 25,000 fleeces. Today, it has 4,000 members, half a million fleeces and a £6 million turnover. Again, the emphasis is on quality—grading 150 grades from 1.5 million tonnes of wool. It has now diversified around 20 ranges of products which it sells.
When we look at the regeneration of the countryside and the joint proposal from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment, we can see what a mountain there is to climb. A recent report from the Cheltenham and Gloucester College is utterly disturbing. It shows a picture of a divided Wiltshire—of all counties! In one village, 40 per cent. of the households' income is more than £40,000, but the income of another 40 per cent. is less than £8,000. Around the town of Pewsey, 25 per cent. of households are living at or near the poverty level. Over the whole county, 14 per cent. still do not have any central heating.
What other solutions might there be? Like farmers, I recognise that they are obliged to look to government to set core national objectives. I know that the present Ministers are as concerned about these matters as farmers most certainly are. But I would ask farmers to look at themselves, consider their image, and ask, "Am I right that it has gone down hill well beyond the old jokes?". I believe that it has. They will need public support if they want to get the things that they need. They need to be less reactive and more proactive. They need to explain and educate; and the Government could help in that direction. They need seriously to consider, and not simply dismiss, those things which the public say about farmers' methods of production. I need not list them because noble Lords will know what I mean.
However, perhaps I may just illustrate one of them; namely, the Farmers' Ferry. I can understand why some farmers felt driven to do it. They claim to have exported half a million sheep, although I doubt that figure. However, in PR terms, it was a real shot in the foot. It is not just the ferry and the lorry journeys: it is what happens to the stock when it gets to Italy, Spain and Greece. The general public hold all farmers responsible for such happenings.
960
I say to farmers: open up your farms to the people. A while ago Sainsbury's was asked by a television company whether it could film one of its pig farms. Sainsbury's said no; the television company trespassed and was found guilty of doing so. Why? If there is nothing to hide, why should the public not know how farms are run and what is happening on them? I should declare an interest here because I do some consultancy work for them, but perhaps I may just refer to the outgoing approach of British Nuclear Fuels with its visitors' centre. It is one of the leading places for people to visit when they take a holiday in Cumbria.
When the Government set the core objectives, I advise them to give the NFU more authority and encourage it to bring forward policies over, I suggest, a seven-year period. That is what will be required to get farming back to where it should be, especially when one considers that there are more than 15 or 20 categories of farming. Collective support should be given to the NFU if it includes some proposals that will he unpopular with some farmers but popular with the people and government.
This is a world where realpolitik and the global economy will not be at all comfortable when organising the future. That was certainly my experience in the trade union world. Indeed, I am bound to say that I could call upon quite a number of witnesses in this House to that fact. I hardly ever obtained what I sought. Three months ago, I asked the Industry Forum, which I have supported from the very beginning, why farming is not seen by it as an industry. I am pleased to say that farming is now being seen as an industry and it is to be hoped that a study by it will be produced before too long.
I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to reply to everything that I have said, but I would certainly urge the Government, first, to find a means of serious financial backing for farmers for joint collaborations and marketing; and, secondly, to revisit the ADAS issue. If we want farmers to change and prosper, they need the best advice, and I believe that that should be free.
4.50 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I, too would like to thank my noble friend Lord Kimball for tabling this debate at such a very apt time—although it is quite an unfortunate time after two bad years for the farming community.
Perhaps I may declare an interest in that I am chairman of a farming company engaged in the roles of what I would like to call orthodox farming, fish farming and forestry. In such an erudite debate as this, with contributions from people who know a great deal about the land, I am not quite sure that I will be able to fill my nine minutes, but I wish to make a few subsidiary points which have not yet been made by any of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said that we must start by looking forward, not back. But we must start by looking at the present and seeing what it is like—and it is very bad. Noble Lords have quoted figures of declining income and so forth. The fact of life is that it is extremely bad, but take away the subsidies and it is a

961
great deal worse; it really is quite impossible. I remember that in sub-committee D, under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, we chatted away about meeting world prices, the GATT round and being on all fours with the rest of the world and its prices. At the moment, that is miles away, as far as I can see. The trouble is that although the subsidies are meant to be decoupled, no subsidy farming is decoupled until it ceases to exist. Subsidies are really meant to be decoupled to make up for a shortfall. If we are going to compete in the world market we need efficiency. Somehow or other some of those subsidies ought to be pointed at making farmers more efficient.
Although I was not there, I read that the Minister of Agriculture—and probably the head of the NFU—hinted at some form of co-operation. I am fortunate enough. I farm on a large scale—and I have declared my interest—and we are still making money. But the smaller farmers are probably not. In a way, they are probably very wasteful. I cannot outline any particular system, but somebody should be able to devise a way whereby groups of farmers could get together—possibly using the contractual industry as well—so that they could assume some of the cloak which we larger farmers wear quite successfully. That would be a better step forward than the £97 for every acre of every crop they grow, and so much more for set aside and so on.
Furthermore, we pay a fairly high price for our subsidies in terms of bookwork, deskwork and bureaucratic—I would not dream of saying "nonsense"—procedures. But some aspects take so much time that the farmer hardly has time to farm; he is making out a passport for his steer—a blue card, a green card and, for those who like football, a red card, I am told! It goes on and on. If you make a little mistake with the forms, you really are in trouble. We received our first threatening letter this year when we lost a bullock. We used to have 90 bullocks but now we have only 89—the other one had gone—so of course we were not paid for the non-existent bullock. That was fair enough, but then we received quite a tough letter saying that the next time we lost a bullock it would be much more serious and we probably would not be paid for any of them. That is just an aside. A tremendous amount of simplification could be done about the way our subsidies are received, particularly for animals.
Animals already have a passport, but they are now going to have a book, just like we do, and a bar code. By the time a bullock eventually meets its demise the book will carry at least three signatures—auctioneers, farmers and others through whose hands it has passed. Perhaps we can improve on that.
Another matter which has not been raised follows on quite well from what I have just said. Nobody in your Lordships' Chamber seems to have noted that today food in this country passes through very few hands indeed. I am told that Sainsbury's and Tesco's deal with about 51 per cent. of the food we consume. In addition, there is Somerfield, Asda, Morrison's in the north, and so on. There lies a tremendous danger to the farming community of which notice should be taken. Those big entities are very powerful. They presumably avoid the
962
Monopolies and Mergers Commission because they do not join together in a monopoly; they are just large. They are tough purchasers, very tough sellers and—dare I say?—with the exception of Waitrose, with which I deal and which is excellent, they are sometimes very slow payers. The big entities are strong.
It follows that if farmers could get together in bigger groups without losing their identity there would be some hope of competing with these big entities. But probably more important would be an approach made to the auctioneers. They will lose their markets because those big players do not like markets. We should make the auctioneers into "agents" such as they have in Australia, where distances to the markets are too far to travel. The agent is the farmer's man. He knows where the animals are going and he gets the beasts together so that he has some bargaining power. Something along that line would be very important indeed. It would not be impossible for somebody to work out such a system.
In commenting briefly on the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, about processing food, I have to tell a story about my own experience with fish. We produce a lot of fish, approximately 1,500 tonnes a year, and we now have to process it. I never wanted to, but we now fillet, marinade and so on. The rules are very, very strict indeed. They are very strict from the Government, quite rightly; and far stricter from Waitrose, quite rightly. I went there the other day, dressed up in my white coat, my hair protector and white gumboots. The manager made a filthy face at me and said "For God's sake, go away!". I asked "Why?". He said, "The inspectors are here.". I said, "But look at me, I am wonderful.". He said, "It is your wheelchair; they think it is very insanitary.". I fled, I have to say.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I must first state that, like other noble Lords, I am a farmer, among other things, and, thank goodness there are other things in my life apart from agriculture. Agriculture is not a rich occupation. We have heard many figures from many noble Lords, and there is one that I wish to quote. Allowing for the deduction of family labour, the NFU forecasts that UK farm incomes have fallen by at least 49 per cent. in 1998 compared to 1997.
I pride my farm on being one of the best performers in the Cotswolds. Our 1997–98 projected accounts will show a loss after paying a notional rent. I am thankful that I am not a tenant farmer and I have deep sympathy for small farmers who are in considerable difficulty. I agree totally with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that smaller farmers should come together into bigger groups of farmers. Even I, as a substantial farmer, group together with other larger farmers in order to command a better bargaining position when selling grain and other commodities.
Most people perceive a farmer as having great wealth because of the land he owns. But the average return on capital has been in the range of only 2 to 4 per cent. The average farmer would have done much better if he had gone off to be retrained as a solicitor, an accountant or even a politician.

963
Moreover, recently the Government have persisted in loading more and more industrial costs on his back, which increases his production costs and cannot be passed on to the consumer. Typical of these are the costs of both the harsher abattoir rules following BSE and the obligation to adopt welfare friendly production systems, which we all know are much stricter than those of his continental counterpart or other non-EU countries.
If high quality, safe foodstuffs produced under stringent controls result in higher food production costs, UK farmers must accommodate these higher costs. But then the UK consumer must be prepared to pay a higher cost for those foodstuffs. The UK farmer needs the Government to help the agricultural industry in informing the UK consumer of the different standards of food that he has a choice of by development of labelling, marketing and promotion of UK higher quality safe foodstuffs. At present some foreign foodstuffs, as we have heard from other noble Lords, are often not required to be produced under such stringent controls and are outcompeting our produce due to their lower production costs. The pear and pig industries are good examples of this.
Both the UK and Europe are in the process of examining the margins made in the food sector by supermarkets. But, from information already available, there seems little doubt that the prices they pay to the farming community have fallen considerably more than the prices they charge to the consumer. Deloitte & Touche, in its publication Farm Results 1997–98, compares actual net farm incomes for the three years 1995–96 to 1997–98 with its projection for 1998–99. Over that period the best sector is dairy and arable where the income per hectare has fallen from £227 to £95. In the root crop sector, it has fallen from £462 to just £64.
Let us consider for a moment what that means. It is the equivalent of a worker in the building trade earning £80 per day with regular overtime having to accept less than one day's earnings for a full week's work. For let us be aware that farm incomes do not disappear because the work is not there. It is simply that the recompense for the work has declined almost to vanishing point.
To make matters worse, the standard response by farmers to falling incomes is often to cut back on direct costs; for instance, by using less expensive older types of spray at lower rates. This can often result in more resistant weed species and lower output. They might cut back on indirect costs; for instance, by not buying that new high-tech sprayer, they will not be able to embrace newer spray techniques and improve savings on chemicals. They might cut back on such things as machinery, which has a knock-on effect on those associated fanning machinery industries. They might cut back on employing local trades people to do property maintenance and repairs. And so this vicious spiral continues.
I have already pointed out that agriculture is not like other industries in that its product is the food we require for life itself. If the producers are put out of business, our only recourse is to get our food from elsewhere. This is feasible but it reduces the ability of our citizens
964
to control the quality of what they eat. The Sunday Times reported two weeks ago that chemical residues were found in 40 per cent. of foods tested by it—most of the offenders being from abroad. A report on Farming Today on Monday of this week indicated that antibiotic resistance will cause more deaths than CJD and that much of the problem will be down to agriculture across Europe.
We must be grateful for the recent government money given to specific areas of agriculture or to specific regions of the country. But this package is too little too late and it is unlikely to stem the tide of bankruptcy, despair and the flood of imports from overseas. Will the Minister tell us today what his Government intend to do to help? Perhaps I may suggest some helpful measures that he could carefully consider. It would not cost much to allow 100 per cent. depreciation of new capital equipment in the year of purchase. It would not cost much to abolish VAT on repairs to farm buildings. It would not cost anything at all to ensure that no further specialist taxes are placed on the farming community. We rely deeply on the Government to create an environment in which farmers can survive. At present, we are suffering from a non-competitive environment.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister to acknowledge that the farmers of this land are the creators and guardians of our clean and attractive countryside that is rich in wildlife. They are responsible in large measure for the preservation of our historic landscape. They are the major players in the continuation of the rural lifestyle and, potentially, the providers of precious leisure facilities to large numbers of urban dwellers.
Earlier today, at the Countryside Commission's countryside access conference, the Minister of State for the Environment, Michael Meacher, stated that the leisure industry in the countryside was responsible for 400,000 jobs and that the 1994 figure of £4 billion that this industry generates makes it a bigger industry than the agricultural industry. Is it now the case that our UK agriculture industry has been relegated into second place behind leisure? One questions whether, without a strong and vibrant agriculture industry which is living, working and sustainable, our leisure industry will be the worse off.
I was interested to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, about the sporting industry because I suspect that, if Michael Meacher had added that on to the agricultural industry, he may well have found that the leisure industry came second to this great agricultural industry of ours.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, on initiating this important debate. As many noble Lords will be aware, I have spoken many times during the past month about the plight of the agriculture industry. But today I shall be very brief indeed. I am just going to remind the Minister that we are still in a crisis.
I am concerned about the severity of the crisis in the countryside and its effect on the local economy. Farm incomes in the United Kingdom have fallen by nearly

965
100 per cent. in the past two years. The incomes of Scottish farmers living in less favoured areas have fallen from £13,800 in 1996–97 to just £2,400 in 1998–99. The situation in Wales is even worse. The statistics released by the Welsh Office show that before the rescue package of £120 million announced last month some farmers were on target to make just £200 this year. Even after taking into account the emergency aid package, those same farmers will earn an average of just £1,400 this year. In my view, those figures are simply appalling. They vividly demonstrate just how bad things have become in Welsh farming. According to the majority view of Welsh farmers, the upheaval under which farmers have been struggling, confirmed by the recession in January, was the worst experienced since the 1930s.
I urge the retailers to play their part in rebuilding the agricultural industry. I have yet to hear a reasonable justification for why supermarket prices have remained so high when revenue to the farmers has plunged so dramatically. I hope that producers and consumers will be able to persuade the supermarkets to build a better relationship between everyone concerned for the sake of the people living in the countryside.
The figures I am about to quote are interesting. During the past three years, there has been a steady rise in the gap between producer and retail prices. There is a gap of 57 per cent. in beef prices; 56 per cent. for lamb; 64 per cent. for pork and 74 per cent. for bacon. I wonder who is profiting on the back of the producers. Perhaps the Minister will be able to let us know when he replies.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his place. He knows more about the agricultural industry than any other government Minister at present.
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord Geraint: Noble Lords tend to agree with me.
According to a survey carried out at the Royal Smithfield Show, 97 per cent. of farmers do not trust supermarkets to be fair to the British agricultural industry and are worried and concerned about the increasing dominance of supermarkets. In my view, livestock farmers should close ranks on marketing and should sell their livestock through their livestock auction system which has been proved to be the best in the world. Farmers should act before the high-powered supermarkets try to destroy our auction system. United Kingdom farmers are well advised to sell their produce at auction.
The Government can advise farmers and all those involved in, and who live in, the countryside to diversify. They can grant extra subsidies or any other state financial aid; but one thing is certain: unless farmers receive a realistic price for their end produce, the present crisis will not go away and many farmers will find it difficult, financially, to carry on.
Once again I urge the Government—I do so quite regularly—to set up a Royal Commission to look into the problems of all the people who care for the
966
countryside. I remind noble Lords that while we talk, 800 million people throughout the world are starving and the Government are still paying farmers for not producing food.
I also suggest that the Government should call together the chairmen of the supermarket giants and the leaders of the farmers' unions in the United Kingdom to discuss strategy so that we can make progress to save the agricultural industry. If there is a will—I repeat, "If there is a will"—there is a way out of the present crisis.
5.12 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, as a non-fanner, I enter this debate with some trepidation, but perhaps I may be granted observer status. As such, I shall certainly not take up the full nine minutes.
Noble Lords have pointed out the plight of the small farmer, and that is what I wish to emphasise. He is suffering much more deeply than his large-scale opposite number in the farming community. It is the small specialist farmer, for instance, who has seen his stock prices plummet and has nowhere to turn. It may be that he has lost the feel for mixed fanning and forgotten the old ways. In addition, his son may well have left the land, seeing it as no source of future income, and requiring a way of life that is not compatible with the lifestyle to which he aspires. Not only may the present farmer be forced to leave the land; there will be no one to take his place. What price then the environment, with large areas of smallholdings deserted? It is a dreadful prospect that we face, and one which my noble friend Lord Kimball addressed with eloquence in his interesting introduction to this important debate, for which I take the opportunity to thank him.
Like any civilised society, we need small farmers to produce healthy, home-grown food. Foreign standards of production do not match our own, with the consequent difficulties for small farmers trying to compete. Nothing is new in this world—certainly nothing in this debate. One solution I would suggest is to take a leaf from across the Channel where Normandy and Breton farmers have successful co-operatives. Co-operatives have been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and my noble friend Lord Middleton. The French co-operative farmers seem to have buried their innate suspicions of each other and have made successful inroads into sending their produce across the Channel to the UK. We can be assured that Brussels, in reforming the CAP, will favour such Francophile plans, which may well therefore be well placed to continue.
That brings me to the possibility of creating organic co-operatives, a feature badly needed in the organic world, and one which would enable the small farmer to enjoy the subsidies that this Government have increased to foster that system of agricultural production. In that connection, a new document has been published by the Family Farmers Association, which emphasises the need for co-operatives. I recommend that document to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He may well find in that some ways of helping to promote organic co-operatives.

967
Organic farming is a system of mixed farming which can bear the costs of changes in those world prices which affect the specialist farmer so deeply, and which allows a farmer to live off his own land. That provides the necessary security for continuity. I do not need to impress upon your Lordships the great advantages, in terms of both transport and price, for a specialist farmer in marketing his produce through a co-operative, thereby creating a continuous flow of goods to the ever-present supermarket. I shall draw a veil over my feelings about those controllers who abuse the market with impunity. The co-operative will enjoy the advantages of the economies of scale—that much-lauded phrase of the marketing man—and create the critical mass necessary for joint production. It will allow hill farmers to join with lowland farmers and create a whole system in any given area to produce cereals, meat and horticultural produce.
I cannot leave this subject without drawing to your Lordships' attention the recently produced report of the Soil Association, entitled The Use and Misuse of Antibiotics in UK Agriculture. That report draws on a wide range of authorities, not least a recent Select Committee report on antibiotics. I cannot refrain from thinking that an awful lot of problems which farmers are suffering today would have been avoided had they not been seduced into intensive farming. I recommend the report from the Soil Association to your Lordships and I shall arrange for all speakers in tonight's debate to receive a copy.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Nunburnholne: My Lords, I note the comments of my noble friend Lord Inglewood about small farmers, be they tenant or freehold. I have bad news for him. I live just up the road from him at the top of Alston Moor, not a hop, skip and a jump away, although I have not yet met him. On my moor—it is not my moor in that I do not own it—in the past 11 years five middle fell and low fell farmers have gone broke, two of whom have committed suicide. It was not this Chamber obviously—as one can see from the attendance here tonight—and it probably was not the other place (was it Brussels?), but who signed their death warrants?
5.20 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for introducing this debate. Although I have spoken often on agriculture recently, he has taken the debate forward to the future. I do not share the general joy at seeing the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the Front Bench. Poachers who turn gamekeepers are always worse and perhaps we might have done better to have an amiable chap to reply to the debate who does not know as much about agriculture as the noble Lord. Nevertheless we have a good case. If we had a bad case, we could do with an amiable fellow to reply to the debate. However, as we have a good case I trust and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will push it in the right direction where the trouble starts which, I understand, is in the Treasury.
968
I wish to discuss the general situation in agriculture throughout the world. We were the first country to industrialise and at the same time we experienced a revolution in agriculture. In the late 18th century and the 19th century we built up an efficient system of farming. That lasted until 1870 when the Vanderbilts built railways across the prairies of America and grain started to pour into this country. That store of grain was grown on soil fertilised by the buffaloes over many centuries. Since then farming has only really prospered when there has been some disaster. During the two wars farming was prosperous. In between the wars there was the misery of the appalling depression of the 1930s. At that time agriculture was competitive. Farmers on the plains of America have been ruined, as have farmers in the Argentine. The primary producer is at the mercy of a savage and ruthless market. Whether he produces cocoa, coffee, tin or any other commodity, the primary producer is always hit when things go wrong.
In this modern world we should be able to produce a system of agriculture that is productive, that cares for the countryside and at the same time feeds the people. That is what has happened, of course. The people of this country may say that they pay too much for food, and perhaps they do. However, the proportion of money spent on food per family has fallen steeply in recent years. We have to ensure that we make the system work. The CAP was an admirable idea but it was ruined completely by politicians. Every time the Commission put forward a case for a reduction in prices, the politicians said that voters in Bavaria or wherever did not want that, and therefore prices were increased, with the result that we are in the situation that now pertains.
We are now approaching the advent of this great Agenda 2000. Every single political party, including my own, says it is committed to producing competitive agriculture. It is easy to produce competitive agriculture, but we also want prosperous agriculture. I have sworn that I shall not mention the term "a level playing field", so I hope noble Lords will take it that I have not used that term. On the previous occasion we discussed agriculture I mentioned some figures as regards the cost of labour in Poland and Hungary. The price of a tonne of barley at present will pay the wages of a man in Poland for nearly four weeks, but the price of four tonnes of barley will pay the wages of a man in this country for only one week. That is the kind of competition that we are up against. We are also up against subsidised agriculture in eastern Europe.
A friend of mine who farms in Hungary discovered that a combine which costs him £120,000 in this country costs him £80,000 there. In addition he received £27,000 in subsidy from the government for buying the combine. Therefore the combine cost him £53,000 rather than £120,000 in this country. That makes a great difference to costs per acre. When the Government consider the entry of the countries of eastern Europe into the European Union and the reform of the CAP, they must ensure there is some form of equality as between producers in the countries of the European Union. Obviously the standard of living of farmers in Hungary and Poland is far too low. However, we must have equality of opportunity.

969
The other thing that the Government must do is to establish their food standards agency—call it what they will—as an independent body which will be respected. Farmers are criticised by people who think that something must be wrong if farmers use fertilisers and pesticides. The noble Lord, Lord Christopher, said that the public has been critical of farming methods. However, those methods are all under the control of government agencies. It is up to the Government to ensure that the public's fears are proved groundless. The Government must ensure that research is carried out on these matters. One needs money to undertake research on the use of antibiotics and other such matters. I shudder when I think of feeding chickens with antibiotics not to cure them of something but to make them put on more flesh. I and many other people want to know whether that will cause harm. The Government must spend the money to enable research to be undertaken on these farming methods. It is no good asking farmers to produce food for the masses in this country at a reasonable price but then slating farmers for doing so. The Commission's Agenda 2000 refers to the necessity to support agriculture.
Do Her Majesty's Government want agricultural incomes to be as high as industrial incomes? Is that one of their aims? It is certainly mentioned in the Commission's document. There have been many good speeches in the debate but the most savage one that I enjoyed the best came from the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. He gave figures that he obtained direct from a commissioner. I trust and hope that the Minister will accompany the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, to meet the commissioner in Brussels tomorrow to ensure that we gain access to the money that is available, even if it costs us 70 per cent. to do so rather than the 50 per cent. it costs other people. Those are questions that the Government must answer.
I have referred to the food standards agency and equal standards. If the Government can achieve those basic things, then the farmers have a chance. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, that there must be a scheme to alleviate the lot of small farmers who are going broke and are in despair. We must see to it that they have a chance to leave the industry gracefully, or to stay in the industry and use all the facilities such as machinery rings and so on that exist nowadays. If that is done, I am sure that we shall return to a period, not of great prosperity, but of reasonable prosperity, which will keep people on the land and keep the land right.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank my noble friend Lord Kimball for providing the opportunity for this important farming debate. It has ranged widely and has reflected the immense pressures under which farmers currently work. Rightly, my noble friend focused our minds on the future of the agriculture industry. He touched on many matters. I shall name merely a few: further enlargement; reform of the CAP; Agenda 2000; constitutional changes; less favoured areas; and environmental and rural support. That brief list serves to indicate the huge diversity in farming and
970
the problems faced by the industry today. I declare a slight interest in farming as a retired poultry farmer; also, my husband has an interest in farming matters.
Many speakers reflected the continuing demise of our agriculture. While there is a degree of optimism in certain sections of the industry, many real problems still face our farmers. The partial lifting of the beef ban by the European Commissioners last week was welcome. However, the ban will not be lifted until March or April. Continued restrictions on selling beef on the bone lessen our drive to regain export markets lost to us over the past three years. The Government have made an additional £120 million available, which is to be welcomed. However, that financial help has gone to only a narrow section of farmers. For some, that help has come too late.
Beef farmers wish to see a return to normal trading as soon as possible. The lifting of the ban on beef on the bone is essential, as much of our former exported beef was purchased abroad through buying the whole beef carcass, not merely beef off the bone. If our export markets are to pick up, that is an important move that must be made. I hope the noble Lord the Chief Whip will be able to tell us more in his reply.
At a time when farmers believe that EU moneys have been available to assist them in the current crisis, the Government have not seen fit to seek extra help under the hardship fund. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, made that point. I understand that there is likely to be an under-spend of moneys allocated within our agriculture budget. That is a matter of concern. Will the noble Lord, Lord Carter, also comment on that in his reply?
At the Smithfield show last week the Agriculture Minister acknowledged that farm incomes had dropped. There was a drop of 33 per cent. between 1988 and 1997, with a further fall in 1998. That is a second fall in a row. Total income from farming has fallen by 63 per cent. in real terms. The Minister went on to say that the cutbacks mean that it is unlikely that additional cash will be available to promote the marketing initiative that is so urgently needed to relaunch our markets abroad.
The situation cannot, and must not, be allowed to continue. The dramatic fall in farm incomes forecast for 1998 is due to a further sharp fall in the value of output from the industry of some 10 per cent; that is, around £1.6 billion in monetary figures. That fall in the value of the industry over two years totals some £3.5 billion. Although welcome, the recent package of help of some £120 million offset against that figure only highlights the dilemma facing the farming industry today.
The pig industry has experienced a difficult year, with profits plummeting. Additional costs have been borne by producers. It is estimated by the ABN that some 11.3 per cent. has been added to base costs to cover costs resulting from the ban on meat and bonemeal, the stall tether ban, farm assurance schemes and deductions made at the abattoir. Those extra costs have come at the same time as falls in prices and as a direct consequence of the comparative price of imports, which are not subject to the same standards of welfare or food safety.

971
The poultry industry has also gone through a difficult time. However, it, like other areas of the industry, is launching a positive promotional fight-back campaign. What it seeks is fairness. Imports to the UK need to be more rigorously inspected and to be seen to be inspected by the Government. Each poultry processing plant in third countries wishing to export to the EU should be inspected by EU vets prior to their being allowed to do so. Currently, it is the authorities in the third country that decide whether the plants comply with EU hygiene rules and standards. The results of tests of UK poultry meat for residues are published every quarter. No test results are published for poultry meat imported from third countries. The lack of information is serious. Producers in third countries are permitted to use veterinary products and feed ingredients that are banned in the UK.
Labelling and food standards have been mentioned by other noble Lords. The agreement with the British Retail Consortium on labelling must also apply to fresh and frozen poultry meat and to imports of finished further processed products from third countries. Such products should not be permitted to be labelled as British. If such labels are misleading on pork, they are equally misleading on poultry meat. As for pigs, meat and bonemeal is banned from poultry feed in the UK. However, poultry producers outside the UK still use it. The ban is to protect the UK beef feed chain. But that protection adds some £30 million annually to the feed bill of the British poultry industry which our competitors in other countries do not have to pay and for which we receive no recompense.
The debate touched on hopes for the outcome of Agenda 2000 and the reform of the CAP. They are crucial to our farming industry. In the ministerial Statement to the House on 16th November the Government stated that the reform of the CAP must create the conditions to allow sustainable and competitive EU agriculture to operate effectively on world markets. Will the Minister define more clearly what is meant by "sustainable" and how the Government see that being achieved? The Statement goes on to say that they wish to see a freeing up of resources to offer scope for better targeted measures to support the rural economy and enhance the environment. Again, perhaps I may press the Minister for greater detail.
The debate has also touched on the early retirement scheme. Farmers are indeed facing difficult times. For those of more mature years the possibility of early retirement is an attraction. The scheme does not require amalgamations, but would enable those who will not survive in the industry to leave it with dignity. What is the current position with regard to the scheme? My noble friend Lord Stanley referred to it earlier.
I turn now to the wider issue of the countryside, for farming and the countryside go together. Two meetings have today taken place in London. The Countryside Commission held a conference to consider countryside matters. I was not there, but I understand that the right honourable Michael Meacher spoke to the conference about the consultations on the right of access and admitted that most demand was for access close to cities
972
and towns. I understand that there was no mention of farming or horticulture. Our farming future is reliant on a total overview. I am somewhat concerned about that.
In this House there was a presentation by Partnership in the Countryside and English Partnerships, which I attended, which dealt with working with rural communities. Those bodies are looking at practical ways to enable communities to help themselves. They encourage community-based businesses and aim to provide information, contacts, funding and examples of good practice. This is important and underlines the immense pressure that farming is under at present.
We could have no one better than the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to reply to this wide-ranging debate. The tremendous pressures upon small tenant farmers, world influences, level playing fields, better use of diversification, the situation in Northern Ireland, food security and the cost of form-filling are but a few of the items that have been mentioned. This has been a worthwhile debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Kimball for making it possible.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before I reply to the debate, perhaps I may, as Chief Whip, congratulate noble Lords on the brevity and succinct nature of their contributions. I now have about an hour in which to reply!
Like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for tabling this Motion and all those who have spoken in the debate for the excellent contributions which we always expect from this House on agricultural and rural issues. In the time properly allowed to me, I cannot hope to respond to all the questions and points that have been raised. However, I shall ensure that all those who do not receive a reply from me today will receive a response in writing.
Because of my former farming interests—which are well known—and my previous connection with an agricultural consultancy, I should make clear that I have made arrangements to relinquish those interests and that those arrangements have been approved by the Cabinet Office. On becoming a Member of the Government, I faithfully followed the guidance provided by the Cabinet Office and the Registrar of Interests in your Lordships' House.
This has been an excellent debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, on raising such an important question. This debate and a number of recent ones demonstrate the concern and commitment of this House to the well-being of agricultural and rural communities. The Government acknowledge that the agricultural industry is going through a very difficult time at present and that times are hardest for those in the livestock sector. That is why on 16th November my right honourable friend the Minister announced a package of aid worth £120 million for the livestock sector and why the Government have taken a number of other measures to ease pressures and encourage development.
I agree at once that the total income from farming figures carry grave news. I in no way wish to belittle the difficulties that farmers face, but we all know that

973
farm incomes are cyclical. In recent years, they have benefited greatly from devaluations and improved productivity. The pendulum has now swung back, with the strengthening of sterling and the over-supply of commodity markets. It is not that many years since, for the first time since the war—and certainly for the first time in my professional experience—tenant farmers were applying to arbitration to have their rents frozen or reduced because of the reduction in farm profits at that time. It is not many years since figures from the NFU showed that farm incomes were at their lowest in real terms since 1945. Farm incomes are cyclical, and I do not for a moment underestimate the problems that farmers now face.
The strength of sterling has been the main contributory factor towards the fall in farm incomes, with the strong pound hitting exports and boosting imports. There has also been a world-wide reduction in prices for most major commodities. But these are not the only reasons. The continuing weakness of the beef sector following the BSE crisis has not only hit beef farmers but has had knock-on effects in other areas. In addition, there has been the collapse of important export markets in Russia and the Far East, which has exacerbated the problem, and the over-optimistic assumptions about the scale of future demand, which led to expansion in some sectors, particularly in pigs.
We acknowledge these difficulties. That is why we have been listening to farmers and their representatives across the UK and why we have already taken a series of steps to help our agriculture, for both the present and the future. When I spoke to Mr. Nick Brown, the Minister, this morning, he asked me to emphasise in this reply that we all need to work together to ensure a competitive, viable and profitable farming industry for the future which will safeguard our rural areas. The CAP reform provides an opportunity in this direction. For example, the rural development proposals set a framework for strengthening our rural areas. We hope to see a redirecting of funds to rural development measures and increased funding for agri-environmental measures. We have been listening to farmers and their representatives and shall continue to do so. My right honourable friend the Minister is planning a broad consultation with all those involved in farming on the way forward on Agenda 2000.
Turning to the individual sectors, we recognise that this has been another difficult year for beef and sheep producers. For beef producers, the market has been influenced adversely by the export ban, continuing structural surplus, falling market prices and falling demand. For sheep producers, there have been two consecutive years of delayed finishing and poor market prices.
EU beef and sheep regimes prohibit the Government from taking unilateral action to support market prices. We have introduced a number of measures to assist the plight of producers. In February, £85 million was distributed to beef and sheep producers in compensation payments. We have recently received agreement from the Commission to open private storage aid for sheepmeat in the UK, to extend beef intervention
974
arrangements in Northern Ireland for the remainder of this year and to increase the advances payable under the beef special premium and suckler cow premium schemes from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. As I have said already, on 16th November a further aid package worth some £120 million was announced which, subject to Commission approval, will provide agri-monetary compensation in the form of supplementary payments under the suckler cow premium scheme, increased payments under the hill-livestock compensatory allowances scheme and the continuation of the calf processing aid scheme until the end of the current financial year.
The recent decision to lift the beef export ban will in time ease at least some of the pressures currently faced by beef producers. The lifting of the ban was a major objective of the Government's policy on agriculture. Tremendous efforts, led personally by the Prime Minister, have been made over the past 18 months to achieve this outcome. This demonstrates our commitment to securing a long-term future for the beef industry. But no one should be in any doubt that, unless the fundamental imbalance of the EU beef market is addressed and corrected, there is unlikely to be a sustained return to profitability within the industry. Against this background, it is clear that reform of the regime is essential.
Turning to the question of beef on the bone, my right honourable friend the Minister welcomed the SEAC assessment of the risk when it met on 9th November. The report is now being considered within government, and in particular by the Chief Medical Officer who will advise Ministers soon. In addition, we need to take account of the potential effects of the Commission's recent proposal for Community-wide controls on specified risk materials. Once this process of consideration is complete, there will be a further announcement about UK controls on bone-in beef.
We all know that it will take time for the British beef industry to regain markets which have been closed to it for the past two and a half years. But the conditions are now in place for the industry to plan for the future. While it will not be easy to renew lost markets, the endorsement we have given of the safety of British beef can only act as a boost to consumer confidence and the industry generally.
I turn now to the pig sector. We know that the pig industry is going through a very hard time at present, with market prices well below the cost of production. Until last May, I had been involved in the pig industry for nearly 40 years. The situation now is the worst I have ever known. This is an EU-wide problem caused in the main by over production, the loss of valuable export markets and a reaction to the very high profits that we made until 1996. The EU pigmeat regime is very light and contains no provision for direct aids to producers of the kind introduced for beef and sheep farmers. To pay these as a state aid is not an option as it contravenes European law. We oppose all state aid schemes in the pigmeat sector because they can distort trade, interfere with the market and risk prolonging the crisis. I hope that they are listening in France.

975
The pig sector benefits from a number of market-related measures agreed within the European Union and supported by the Government. These are worth almost £100 million in market support across the EU this year. The measures include the re-introduction of refunds on exports of fresh and frozen carcasses and cuts of pigmeat; two further increases in those refunds, including a 75 per cent. increase in exports to Russia; and the introduction of an aid to private storage schemes. My noble friend, Lord Donoughue, the Parliamentary Secretary, has spearheaded a campaign aimed at the catering and food service sector with the objective of increasing the use of British pigmeat products in a sector which takes 30 per cent. of the pigmeat market. The Government have received undertakings from the major retailers that all their own label fresh pork, bacon, ham and sausages will come from stall and tether and MBM-free systems. In addition, they will not sell imported fresh meat processed or packaged in the UK under a British label.
The arable sector also faces difficulties due mainly to a run of very big harvests in cereal-producing regions across the world. Other factors have been the strength of sterling and the poor weather. But we have emerged from a number of years of excellent arable profits which as we all know have been capitalised in the price of land. Recognising these adverse weather conditions, the Government took action to help UK cereal farmers in September by relaxing the moisture content limit laid down by the EU for cereals sold into intervention from 14.5 to 15 per cent. This helped to reduce the costs incurred by the industry in drying grain and was welcomed by the farming industry. The Ministry also made good progress with this year's arable area payments. Some 98 per cent. of advance oilseed payments were made by the end of September. Main arable payments started in October and are due for completion by the end of December. I am pleased to be able to say that about 85 per cent. of these payments have now been made, totalling over £700 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made reference to bio-fuels. MAFF, through the work of the Alternative Crops Unit, is promoting the uptake of crops as a source of renewable raw materials for energy and industry. The unit encourages developments in non-food crops by maintaining databases, disseminating information and organising a programme of seminars and workshops. The question of possible support for energy and industrial crops is now being considered in the Agenda 2000 proposals for CAP reform. Industry has voiced concerns over the future of voluntary set aside and the uncertainties of future support for non-food crops. The Agenda 2000 proposals did not contain any specific recommendations for energy and industrial crops, but recognised that renewable raw materials could represent a new opportunity for agriculture and forestry and contribute to job creation in rural areas. They can also make a significant contribution to achieving the climate change commitments that we have made.
The Commission has committed itself to producing a report within the context of Agenda 2000 on the present state of the non-food and energy crop markets and their future development and, if necessary, to make
976
appropriate proposals. I understand that the Commission will make an initial report to the Agriculture Council next week. The UK will be pressing for a serious discussion about the future development of the energy and industrial crop sectors.
We know that the hill areas have always had a particular sensitivity. In addition to the aid given to hill farmers in the recent aid package, in the longer term we want to replace HLCAs with a new scheme which will deliver support to hill farmers much more effectively to ensure that hill farming has a more secure and sustainable future. The aim of the new scheme will be to help maintain the environmental and social fabric of upland areas. The issue is being considered in the context of Agenda 2000 proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy. These envisage a change in the basis of granting support to the less favoured areas. The key proposal is that compensatory allowances will become area payments and have a clearer environmental objective instead of the livestock headage payments which we have at present with HLCAs. We all know their environmental effects. We realise that change may not be easy and we are keen to hear the views of all interested parties before deciding on the way forward. We hope to start consultation on options for a new scheme later this year.
The wellbeing of agriculture cannot be secured completely by response to short-term crisis, helpful though that may be in particular sectors. The Government are also looking at ways in which long-term stability and prosperity can be brought into the rural economy. First, the proposed reform of the CAP provides an opportunity for change. The Government would like to see the policy reformed to phase out production-linked support, allowing European farming to develop into a competitive industry that can survive and prosper in increasingly open markets. In doing this, however, we must and do recognise the importance of farming to the environment and the economy of rural areas. As a former member of Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House, I well remember the number of reports that it produced which supported this policy framework.
We therefore welcome as part of the Agenda 2000 process the Commission's proposal on support for rural development. The proposal sets the framework for strengthening the environmental and rural development components of the CAP, allowing member states to prioritise their wishes for environmental action, support for less favoured areas, forestry, structural adjustment and diversification. Most of the measures would be able to be applied across the whole country. However, much more needs to be done in the way of redirecting funds towards the rural economy before these proposals can take effect. In line with the Government's commitment to the rural environment, the Comprehensive Spending Review provided for a continuing expansion of areas subject to agreement under the major agri-environment schemes in England. An extra £40 million is being made available over the next three years to fund improvements and enhancements to the schemes.

977
The Government are also committed to examining the future needs of agriculture and the countryside. In connection with Agenda 2000, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture plans broad consultation with all parts of the industry. The Government's manifesto on which we fought the election set out a number of pledges that outlined our approach to the countryside and rural matters. We have been taking forward policies for rural areas in many different ways. In addition to aids for agriculture we have made available an extra £50 million a year for rural public transport and increased the target for development on brownfield land to give extra protection to the countryside. The Government now intend to put all these policies together and set out a framework to help achieve our vision for the future. The proposed interdepartmental rural White Paper will be a clear example of this approach to policy.
We hear all about supermarkets that exploit farmers. We look at the agricultural industry to take initiatives where it can. There have been recent allegations that supermarkets exploit farmers based on the differences between market and retail prices. We have heard them today. We understand that major retailers are demanding and powerful customers. But farmers appreciate that they also provide access to millions of consumers. It is inevitable that small businesses such as farmers will encounter difficulties when dealing with major companies such as supermarkets. But we have to be realistic. Today most sectors of business operate in an increasingly global market. If we cannot supply what the customer wants we can be sure that somebody somewhere can and will. Producers therefore need to be able to deal effectively with major buyers. This often means collaboration so that producers can offer the scale, quality and consistency of supply required by the major buyers.
For that reason, we have joined the NFU in a joint initiative on collaborative marketing described as "building business advantage". My right honourable friend the Minister and the President of the NFU launched the process at the Royal Smithfield Show. The idea is a simple one. By focusing on the successful practitioners we aim to highlight the benefits of collaborative marketing such as economies of scale and access to professional marketing assistance and technical support. Over the next few months, the NFU will hold a series of regional seminars at which the benefits of this approach can be discussed. There will be opportunities, too, to see successful co-operative activity in action.
As I read out this brief, I have a strong sense of déjà vu. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, will remember very well the initiatives in the early 1970s in which we were both involved. Does he remember the proposal for the establishment for the British Agricultural Marketing and Development Organisation (BAMDO)? In agriculture and policy making, I fear that if one stands in the same place the policy caravan passes and repasses.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, mentioned Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome. That is an admirable statement of the objectives of agricultural policy. It is a statement
978
which is not far removed from the preamble clause to the Agriculture Act 1947, which was the foundation of our post-war agricultural prosperity. I cannot help but point out that the Agriculture Act 1993 repealed the objectives clause of the 1947 Act. It was a simple and understandable repeal. In my view, it marked a watershed in UK agricultural policy because it recognised that policy decisions have finally and irrevocably moved from Whitehall Place to Brussels.
The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, mentioned enlargement. We all know that the European Union now stretches from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean and from the Atlantic to Poland. After enlargement it will stretch from the Atlantic to Russia and almost to the Adriatic. This enormous geographical, social and agriculture structure cannot but present an enormous challenge to the whole future of the CAP.
I was asked a technical question by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. He asked why all the agri-monetary compensation had not been taken up. As he knows, there are limits on the amount of compensation that can be spent on each of the four sectors eligible for aid, which are beef, milk, sugar and cereals. Because of EU rules most of the aid which is currently available is payable only to the cereals sector. We decided not to do that. The United Kingdom is paying the maximum available to the beef sector in the second year of the three-year package. A further small package of aid would be available to the beef sector as a result of the revaluation on 3rd May. Up to half of that package can be reclaimed from the EU budget without any further matching national contribution. The plans will need to be notified to the Commission by May of next year.
We should not overlook the effect of the freeze on the green rates. That freeze ran for several years. It had the effect that the conversion rate from ecus into pounds sterling was fixed at a higher rate than it would have been otherwise. So payments to UK farmers under the livestock and arable schemes were considerably higher than if the rate had not been frozen in recent years. I do not have the figure by me, but I believe that it was some hundreds of millions of pounds over the period to which it applied. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, is nodding.
There is an idea that compensation has no cost to the UK Exchequer. The operation of the United Kingdom's European Union budget abatement means that even paying the EU reimbursed element of agri-monetary compensation carries significant public expenditure implications for the UK Exchequer.
There are other questions to which I shall reply in writing. One noble Lord referred with some praise to the American Farm Act and the way in which farmers there have to manage without subsidies. As a result of the recent 1999 Agricultural Appropriations Bill, United States farmers will receive an additional 7 billion dollars in the form of disaster aid and tax relief.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me about the underspend on the agricultural budget. There are no significant underspends on that budget this year. It is true that we allowed for greater expenditure in the EU livestock and arable schemes in the estimates that we

979
submitted to the Commission. However, these schemes are demand-led and are totally funded by the European Commission. Therefore, there is no specific provision for them. For example, it is simply not the case that, because the total value of livestock and arable direct payments administered by agriculture departments this year is less than forecast, the difference is available to fund compensation. It is not true that there is money available for the Government without any additional cost to the UK Exchequer.
I hope that I have answered at least some of the points raised in the debate. I shall certainly ensure that all those which have not been dealt with will be answered in writing. It has been a good debate. It has given me the opportunity to show that the Government—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer the simple question that I asked him? Do the Government still stand by the 1947 Act and by the statement of the Commission that in agriculture we deserve a standard of living comparable to that of others?
Lord Carter: My Lords, we certainly support the objective of Agenda 2000. But as I have said, that objective was set out in the 1947 Act and repealed by the previous government. Perhaps I may end with the remarks with which I concluded my maiden speech in this House nearly 12 years ago. I quoted A.G. Street. He once observed that for farmers everywhere in the world the most important and urgent question for them every day was not what the politicians would or would not do for them, but whether it would rain tomorrow.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Byford on her first speech from the Dispatch Box on her new portfolio. Those of us who are familiar with her husband's farm will realise that she comes from a very knowledgeable farming background. Perhaps I may also say what a pleasure it is to have the wind-up speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. His knowledge of the subject is well known. It is very much appreciated by all of us that he has chosen to reply to this debate. We have had what I can only describe as an informed and sympathetic debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it and who have taken so much trouble to raise so many constructive points. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Health Service
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege rose to call attention to rising expectations and advances in medical science and their implications for the National Health Service over the next 50 years; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before I open this debate I would like to declare an interest. I am an executive director of a management consultancy firm called MJM Health-care Solutions. Ninety-five per cent. of our work is for and with the NHS.
980
I love the NHS. I grew up in it. My father joined it as a GP in 1948. In my home we literally had blood on the carpet when patients came to the house in extremis. My father's surgery was in part of a converted boarding school for girls. It was reached by a rickety outside fire escape. In my village one had to be very fit to visit the doctor. It was heated by a paraffin stove and the icy temperature of my father's hands were legendary. It was said that he could make babies jump in the womb.
As children we were drip-fed with the importance of the NHS ethic based on the Christian principles of love thy neighbour and each according to his needs. My father's compassion, care, application and scientific knowledge brought home to us the reality of that ethic. He never spared himself or us if a patient was in need. It is a fine ethic and highly prized by the British people.
My concern and purpose in calling for this debate is not to "have a go" at the Government, although I know that the role of the Opposition is to oppose, question, seek to amend and refine. We shall do that later in the parliamentary year when the Government introduce their health Bill. But my purpose tonight is to debate with all sides of the House—I am very grateful to many of your Lordships who are taking part in it—how we can absorb modern technology, social change and people's aspirations while maintaining this much prized ethic, which we know so well, whether young, old, black, white, rich or poor or Prince William hit over the head with a golf club; the drunk in the gutter—all have a right to healthcare largely free at the point of delivery.
With infinite demand outstripping limited resources; with a service which is so popular but without a buoyant financial base to support it, quite simply tonight I ask this question: is the NHS sustainable and, if so, how? Successive governments, of course, have chipped away at the edges with prescription charges, charges for dentistry, eyesight tests and so on. Every government have recognised the value of lifting some of the burdens through occupational health schemes and through redrawing the boundaries between social care, which is means-tested, and healthcare, which is free. Every Government have sought to make the NHS accountable not only in clinical practice but in the use of resources. And every government since 1979 have increased the contribution from the taxpayer.
I do not wish to waste time bandying about figures, arguing which government in which year invested more resources in the NHS. I think that that is a barren debate since it inevitably gets into the territory of real growth, spinned growth and "double counting"—an art form in which I have to say this Government excel. Suffice to say that the average growth for the NHS over the past few years has been around 3 per cent. and future growth is likely to be roughly of the same order with inflationary pressures taken into account.
So I do not want to look back; I want to look forward. A new book published by the BMA and edited by Sir Michael Peckham and Marshall Marinker, was launched on 2nd December. It is entitled Clinical Futures. Its eight authors are among the most distinguished professors in the land. They argue that technological advances and the unravelling of the

981
human genome will bring unparalleled opportunities for new treatments. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—no one could do it better than he—will address some of those issues. However, I wish to give two examples. The first concerns the remarkable developments in the field of brain repair and other parts of the nervous system. Cell transplants for Parkinson's Disease are already being tried experimentally and the authors predict that this field is likely to grow. There could be as many as 50,000 xenotransplants each year to remedy this awful condition. The authors also predict that by cloning sections of DNA genetic engineers will have the potential to produce designer babies, but only for those who can afford it.
This is heady stuff and your Lordships may have more sympathy for those suffering from Parkinson's Disease than for spoilt couples who wish to design their offspring. But that is so often the way things start.
Some noble Lords may remember Lord Trafford who was a Minister in your Lordships' House. Lord Trafford was a renal physician in Brighton. He and I worked together. He was a pioneer of renal dialysis. I remember going to his department and on his wall was a large "60". I asked him what it meant. He said that it meant two things. First, the 60 referred to the number of people he could take on dialysis; and if you were the 61st, that was very unfortunate, because you had to wait either for someone to die or for someone to have a successful transplant. The second reason that he had "60" on the wall was that he would not treat anyone over 60. You had to be under 60 to be treated. In Wales last week I related that to some specialist registrars—junior doctors about to become consultants. They were simply horrified because today we take access to renal dialysis as a matter of course.
The authors of this book are not fantasy merchants. They are not writers of fiction. They are people much respected by the medical and scientific community. They are predicting huge and expensive advances within the next few years. I have not mentioned life enhancing drugs and the pharmaceutical industry since I think my noble friends Lady Hooper and Lord Lyell may refer to them. The question I ask is how we are to absorb those costs if we are to improve the quality of the existing NHS—a much proclaimed aim of the Government—and still maintain its comprehensive nature. Within limited resources, if we improve quality we tend to jeopardise comprehensiveness. If we maintain comprehensiveness, we erode quality.
On Sunday night there was a news item on Radio 4 featuring a pioneering technique for cervical cytology. The Secretary of State said that if the Government's advisers recommended this new and expensive technique, money would be found. I applaud his confidence. But from where is the money to be found? Will it mean that people will have to wait even longer for routine surgery and treatment—a form of rationing well known to the NHS? My noble friend Lord McColl will address that issue and, after all, he is one who has an intimate knowledge of waiting lists. However, I simply point out that at the end of October 1,119,000 patients—that is still 35,000 patients more than the
982
waiting list the Government inherited—are waiting for treatment. Ministers are rightly concerned that so many people should be waiting so long in pain and misery. Ministers have spent an extra £417 million on waiting lists this year. Over the past seven months the total list has fallen by almost 119,000. That works out at around £3,500 per patient. Normally the NHS expects to pay around £1,000 for each admission. So I should like to ask the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—I have given her notice of the question—why the Government pay unnecessarily twice or three times the going rate to achieve the outcome they wish.
I have also given the Minister notice of my second question. What has been happening to the number of patients suspended on waiting lists during the Government's waiting list initiative? A month by month table showing the national aggregate of suspensions as a percentage of list size would give a true picture. In the light of this Government's wish to be open and honest with the public, please could Ministers publish the full information and not be selective? We need to see the full picture not just the half the Government wish us to see.
I chose the title of the debate with great care. However, I had to alter my original proposal at the suggestion of the Officers of the House. My language apparently was not parliamentary, or at least was not suitable for a debate title. Originally I started with the proposal: to take note of 50 years of remarkable progress in healthcare. I wished to give recognition to those who over half a century had given their working lives to heal, comfort, and care for the sick. They have been, and are, remarkable men and women. I include not just doctors and nurses but managers, scientists, laboratory workers, paramedics, ward clerks, cooks, cleaners, porters, and so on. The vast majority show great commitment to the NHS and are prepared to give their best day in and day out. When non-executive directors are appointed—people from outside the service—they are universally surprised by the strong motivation of the workforce. But that should not be taken for granted. The title of the debate includes the words "rising expectations"—expectations not only of the public but also of those who work in the service. They expect to have sufficient resources to do the job well—not just money but sufficient colleagues and support staff. They expect the Government, ultimately their employer, to stand by them and support them. But the Government also have to look after the interests of the consumer. I understand why this Government are seeking greater clinical accountability through new—I have to say rather bureaucratic—mechanisms.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the Commission for Health Improvement, clinical governance and so on are all tools for the future. They are heavyweight, some would say oppressive, tools with few incentives or rewards. In the light of the Bristol case, and some of the other high profile cases, I can understand the Government's concern. However, my concern is that while supporting greater accountability the Government should be aware of the very special relationship which exists between the doctor and his or her patient, between the public and the medical

983
profession. If that trust is broken, if that special relationship is severed, we shall all be the losers—the public, the medical profession, the NHS and the Government.
I urge the Minister—I know that the noble Baroness is sympathetic and truly understands the NHS—to advocate with her ministerial colleagues a lighter touch and fewer occasions when we hear from the lips of her colleagues the words "heads will roll". Fear is only one way to manage an organisation and in my experience it is a pretty poor motivator. High quality recruits are the lifeblood of any organisation and retaining good staff is essential to its well being.
I wish to move now to the largest workforce within the NHS: nurses, midwives and health visitors. The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, will also mention the subject. The RCN constantly reminds us—it is right to do so—that nurses are the backbone of the NHS. They provide 80 per cent. of direct patient care. They spend more time with patients than any other professional group. So we should be very worried that 60 per cent. of employers report current and significant problems in recruiting nurses; that there is a shortage in excess of 8,000 full-time posts across the UK; and that the number of nurses aged over 55 is set to double over the next five years with a quarter of registered nurses in the NHS eligible for retirement in the year 2000. That is a very bleak picture, very bleak indeed. The NHS faces the worst shortage of nurses in a quarter of a century.
With an ever-increasing elderly population, the demands on the nursing workforce will not diminish; they will grow. Already we know that the quality of some elderly care is poor and the Government are seeking to improve that through tighter controls. But it will be fruitless to control a service which is already disappearing from view.
It was a much respected and loved Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Home, who, before he died, wrote:
"To my deafness I'm accustomed,
To my dentures I'm resigned,
I can manage my bifocals
But oh! how I miss my mind".
He was not alone. There are countless thousands who now and in the future share those fears. But their anxieties will deepen if there is not a committed nursing workforce with the skills, expertise and compassion to cope with the last years of life.
The Government are committed to organisational change and we shall be debating that in the months to come. This evening I have tried to address other challenges, longer-term challenges, which need to be thought through if we are to maintain the powerful and much-cherished ethic of the NHS: love thy neighbour and each according to his needs.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.21 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to debate this important Motion this evening. The noble
984
Baroness and I had an extremely productive relationship when she was a Minister and carers everywhere have reason to be grateful for her commitment to that cause.
Other noble Lords will address the scientific challenges which the noble Baroness put to us. I wish to look at matters from the patient angle and I am much more optimistic than the noble Baroness. It is a matter for rejoicing that we have higher expectations of the NHS than we have ever had before and that there is a great deal more focus on the patient than there was in the NHS's early days. However welcome it was 50 years ago, nobody could pretend that the NHS put the patient at its centre. We are now beginning to do that and that will have an effect on how we deal with some of the problems which the noble Baroness set out for us.
Too many people, especially older people, have been content with less than satisfactory healthcare because it is free and they grew up believing that healthcare had to be paid for. Linking that with our anxieties about the demographic time bomb and so many older people in our society means that old people are vulnerable to debates about rationing by age, one of which the noble Baroness brought to our attention.
But the development of the empowerment of the older people's movement and the empowerment of patients altogether, although it may have been slow to develop in this country, is gathering pace. Without any hesitation I should say that that is bound to have an effect on how we deal with patients in the future. It is a cause for celebration that that patient power movement is gathering pace.
That very fact makes us anxious about how we shall deal with the demands that such an empowered patient movement will put upon us. The problem in relation to the doomsday scenario as to how we shall cope with that is that we always view the future with the attitudes and statistics which are available to us now without taking account of the effect of changing attitudes and statistics and, above all, the effect of changing policies. For example, if we had been having this debate in 1951, we should have been in a scenario where the average length of stay in hospital was 45 days. Now it is less than seven days. The noble Baroness will remember during her time in office as a Minister the huge advances in the sophistication of anaesthetics which led to a great improvement in the quality and availability of day surgery, which had its own effect on how we could deal with the huge agenda before us.
The public health agenda undertaken by the Government, the reorganisation of primary care and the development of health action zones will surely have a huge and measurable effect on the health of our nation, as will the increased interest in health within schools, the workplace and neighbourhoods. Similarly, environmental issues—air and water quality and housing—will have an effect and will improve our health.
I wish to focus on a couple of special initiatives with which I have a connection as chairman of the New Opportunities Fund. They are not heavyweight and I certainly intend to ensure that they are not bureaucratic.

985
The first of those is the development of healthy living centres. The Government have put aside £300 million for the development of healthy living centres, which are to focus on the wider determinants of health such as social exclusion, mental health, poor access to services and social and economic aspects of deprivation. We shall encourage innovative ways in which to respond to those challenges in order to meet the needs of different communities and groups. We may include projects which deal with community health services, health screening, physical activity, dietary advice, parenting classes, complementary therapy and anti-smoking projects. All of those will inevitably have a positive effect on the health of the community in which they operate.
We shall be inviting applications in early 1999. We intend to have at least 300 healthy living centres and will reach 20 per cent. of the population by the end of 2002.
A similarly important initiative which the New Opportunities Fund will undertake is in relation to cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care. We shall undertake neighbourhood projects which will increase the information available to patients. I am absolutely certain that that will bring about positive health outcomes. The cancer initiative will include how we deal with palliative care and also extremely strong links with the voluntary sector.
I am sure that the primary aim of healthy living centres and our cancer initiative to target people in communities who have the worst health and the greatest health inequalities will have an effect. We are well aware that we are undertaking a huge task, but my board is determined that we shall achieve positive results. I am confident that that, together with other initiatives which are being undertaken to promote health in our nation, will ensure that my optimism is justified in the future and that the NHS will not only continue to provide one of the best services in the world in relation to health but also will be more and more responsive to the needs of patients.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when I looked at the title of the debate and saw that it referred to:
"implications for the National Health Service over the next 50 years",
I was not sure at first that I should speak. Then I decided that there is one area of healthcare in particular which will become increasingly apparent over the next 50 years and which has not been dealt with in the past; that is, sports and exercise medicine.
What has been a rather Cinderella-like service in the past has now become something to which we are paying far more attention for the simple reason that more of us are playing sports. We are playing sports at a higher level and we are asking more of our bodies. Therefore, we are damaging them more frequently in the pursuit of a healthier lifestyle. If you run around, you will fall over and hurt yourself. If you walk slowly and sit in an armchair, you will not injure yourself.
986
Bodies can be treated rather like cars. You can run them into the ground and let them fall apart or they can be allowed to rust quietly. The best approach is to use our bodies sensibly and to have the right sort of maintenance available.
The fact is that the NHS is not well suited to helping people in the area of sport and exercise; it was not designed to do so. The National Health Service was designed to stop people dying of x diseases. The great lie to modernisation is that we can only prepare for what happened yesterday and not for what may happen tomorrow. We did not know that there would be this great burst of people taking exercise. On previous occasions I have indulged myself in attacking the lycra culture of the sports industry, where people dance around and say, "Yes, you can be super fit"—and if not you can sit around in the right designer gear in the gymnasium smiling and hoping that your stomach does not start to sag when you walk over to sit on the next machine waiting for a photo opportunity.
That sort of culture seems to be breaking down now and people are beginning to realise that being fit takes graft. Our athletes at the top level are setting incredibly high standards. There is always a trickle-down effect in terms of performance in sport and exercise generally. We are now asking so much more of ourselves at amateur levels in sport.
I must declare an interest, although it is a declining one. I am an ageing rugby player. The nearest I have come to sports medicine was a rather bashed-up knuckle acquired in the parliamentary rugby team. It happened because for once I decided that I would not flatten somebody; I would merely grab him as he passed. He carried on going, and so did my finger. It is a minor injury of the kind that we do not generally take to doctors. Some injuries we will take to casualty—cuts or dislocations—and ask for treatment.
The fact is that people are taking time off work as a result of sports injuries and that has a national economic cost. It is something we must address. One way forward will be by training GPs to recognise the minor levels of rehabilitation and what is required. Every sportsman I have ever spoken to has a story about a GP telling them to rest for six weeks. If a person with a muscle out of place rests for six weeks, at the end of that time he will merely have a weakened muscle which will tear again. That is something about which every sportsman of my age knows.
We need a regular support service. Indeed, two British medical institutions—the National Sport and Medicine Institute and the British Association of Sport and Medicine—have put in place a diploma course for GPs to teach them how to deal with injuries, particularly at junior level. Within the medical establishment we need a Royal College for sports and exercise medicine. It is not just sportsmen who damage themselves; for example, ballet dancers sustain injury with appalling regularity, as do all dancers.
We need people who know about the problems, about the correct forms of rehabilitation and preparation. Unless that happens, our healthier society and the type of maintenance I mentioned earlier will not happen. We

987
will continue to see far too many people suffering injuries, both big and small, and ultimately not returning to a healthier lifestyle.
I wish to make one point on a slightly different subject. With the growth in technology in medicine, as in all other parts of society, we are producing better equipment to do diagnostic work. That has one huge potential benefit for one small section of our society; that is, those who have difficulty in expressing themselves. It may be that they have intellectual impairment disabilities and do not have the means of making themselves understood easily to a doctor. I hope that, as the technology improves and comes on line, the Government will seek to encourage GPs to put those people forward for more scans. They will then be able to diagnose the problems. If a patient cannot make himself understood, he cannot tell the doctor what his nervous system is saying and therefore will not receive the right treatment. We have increasing means at our disposal to deal with that problem. I hope that both parts of my speech receive a favourable response.
6.34 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I am hesitant to add my lay voice to a subject which requires both the expertise and wisdom abundantly possessed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who introduced this welcome debate. In the 50th anniversary year of the NHS it is timely to ask whether the service can still do what it set out to do in 1948. I take seriously what the noble Baroness outlined by way of the difficulties the service will face. I am sorry that I am not speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who will say more on that subject. But I wish to indicate that I take those challenges very seriously.
The National Health Service seems to me to be the practical expression of a big idea. Indeed, it is sometimes said to be the only religious belief of the British people—an exaggeration, but not by much! The idea that the National Health Service embodies, as the noble Baroness said, is a moral one; that is, that it is a good thing when a human being in relievable distress is helped without regard to his or her capacity to pay for that help. That good is not just an individual good; it is a public good. And it is not a public good because that person may subsequently become a contributor to the national economy; he or she may not do so and it is still a public good. It is good for older people; good for people with severe disabilities and good because it is good for us all.
The interesting point about the NHS is that, having established this big idea in a massive institution, the mere existence of the institution teaches us the force of that idea. For all its difficulties, which one of us wants to return to inferior medicine for the poor? What is more, because it is a morally based institution, it attracts the services of men and women who inwardly believe that their life's purposes are best spent in serving it. There is a passion in such service; there is a passionate yes to relieving individual distress where it can be relieved without regard to that person's financial status or aspiration.
988
But every institution, paradoxically, has to change in order to remain the same. An interesting article was published in the BMJ which reminds us how limited was the range of treatments available to general practitioners in the 1940s. To fulfil an analogous role in the modern world we have to take account of changes which are not merely medical, but also social. Those two require considerable thought.
If we ask what changes are imposed upon us, I would highlight, first, the matter of persisting inequalities. Those were demonstrated first by the Black Report of 1982 and, more recently, in September of this year in the Acheson Report on Inequalities in Health. That report makes abundantly clear that equity was one of the founding principles of the NHS and it still recommends that a way be found to ensure that healthcare services serving disadvantaged populations are not of poorer quality and less accessible. That is the same tone as was clear in 1948 when the NHS was founded.
Secondly, there is a complicated issue surrounding the matter of trust. Interpersonal public trust was a very different matter in 1948 than it is today. One of my deepest fears for the NHS is the attempt to embrace medical relationships within a contract culture in which everything is costed. If I am right, the moral idea at the heart of the NHS is that of kindness and compassion—as Blake put it, the human face divine of Mercy and Pity. In this idea there is an unspoken covenant between persons; a legal contract is an entirely different matter.
On a recent visit to Washington, I caught sight in the metro of an advertisement for a health scheme. There was a picture of a doctor examining a child and the caption read, "He is making a diagnosis, not a business decision". You would not compose a caption like that unless it addressed a real situation, and for me that situation—I am quite clear about it—is wholly undesirable. When a person gives blood for nothing, that is just kindness; but when the blood is turned into a product and legal dispute breaks out as to who owns it then the implicit covenant between people becomes qualitatively different.
I believe that we all have a role in protecting the NHS of the future from a litigiousness whose first instinct is suspicion and the presumption of bad faith. So modernisation is on everybody's lips, but what I want to hear from the moderniser's own lips is a commitment to the thought that the basic idea of the NHS is a moral one. There are those who in the modern world have actually no moral convictions whatever. They may be kindly people in their own way, but they believe that morality is simply a matter of personal opinion. There are those whose programmes of modernisation amount to covert ways of undermining the fundamental idea, and so there is very hard work for us all to do, making real the big idea in the structural, medical and administrative detail of a great institution which took to itself in 1948 the title "service".
6.41 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for introducing this debate and I should like to say how much I appreciated her

989
splendid speech. Her Motion invites us to look ahead to the next 50 years and I should like to start by taking my text from an article in The Times this morning:
"This therapy will be the medicine of the next century".
When one looks to see what "this therapy" is, it turns out to be a technique that would allow babies to be born with an embryonic "twin" to grow spare tissue and treat life-threatening diseases in later life. The imagination does not merely boggle: it is really very startled indeed. I shall come back to that in a few moments, but what I want to do is to try to glimpse what the future holds as regards the advance of science for the prevention and treatment of disease, together with the promotion of better health. I should like to start with a proposition which I heard about 10 years ago from that great doctor, Sir Christopher Booth, when we shared a platform at a conference in Paris. He said,
"It is a popular view that science has unravelled the mysteries of human health and disease, with a few dark corners still to be uncovered. The truth is the precise opposite. There are a few areas where enlightenment prevails—but most of the rest is still shrouded in mystery".
I think we do well to remember that. The last 50 years, it is true, have seen huge advances: new imaging techniques, new diagnostic and screening methods, new treatments, new drugs—a proliferation of new drugs—new surgical techniques and much more. Of the next 50 years, one thing is absolutely certain: that is that the pace of scientific and technological advance will quicken. In the same way as much medical practice today is totally different from what it was 50 years ago, so we can be sure that by the year 2048—and I doubt whether many of us will be here—much, even most, medical practice will be different again.
The change, as my noble friend mentioned, is being driven, perhaps more than anything else, by the genetic revolution. I am no scientist, though I should declare an interest perhaps as the chairman of the Foundation for Science and Technology. As a non-scientist I have tried to understand what it is all about. I commend to my lay colleagues—and I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will be aware of this—a remarkable book called The Book of Man by Sir Walter Bodmer and Ian McKie, telling the story of the genetic revolution, from the generations of left-handed Kerrs on the Scottish Borders through to the human genome project, calling on the way on the Mendelian laws of inheritance and the double Helix of Watson and Crick.
In the Select Committee on Science and Technology's study of antibiotic resistance, we heard of the work to map the genomes of some of the dangerous pathogens that are becoming resistant to antibiotics and of the hope that this technique might lead to the discovery of the gene which promotes natural resistance. My first question to the Minister—like other speakers, I have given her notice—is: when are we going to see the Government's response to that report, which was published as long ago as last April?
The genetic revolution is prevailing over many areas of medicine and it so happened that the other day I was reading an issue of the New Scientist. In that one issue there were described a large number of new discoveries
990
based on genetics. I have referred to the culturing of the human embryonic stem-cells, leading to ways of growing tissues or even organs for transplant. It is this work which, says today's Times, is the subject of a recommendation by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that the Government should widen the regulations to allow scientists to develop new therapies for diseased and damaged tissues. We seem to be moving along the road to cloning people.
My second question to the Minister is therefore this: are the Government satisfied that it is right that the committee of four experts who have drawn up this recommendation included nobody from the discipline of medical ethics? Is it sufficient to have the imprimatur of the main authority, which does include ethicists? Is that enough to make sure that the intentions of Parliament in this field are in fact being effectively implemented?
In that same issue of the New Scientist we also read of treating heart failure by gene therapy. And so it goes on: gene therapy to grow new teeth; DNA tests to show which drugs will or will not work; and so on. All this is in just one issue of a popular science journal.
How much more lies over the horizon? One has only to read the ABPI's recent publication, An A to Z of British Medicines Research, to see how many of the projects being researched by the drugs industry are based on genetics. One begins to appreciate, when one thinks in terms also of universities, research councils and medical charities, just how profound this revolution is going to be.
And so my last question—and with this I must sit down—is: are the institutions of medical education keeping up with all this? Are the doctors being trained in the new technology? Do continuing medical education and continuing professional development really fit the medical profession for this revolution—because without any doubt the revolution is profound?
6.47 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on initiating this debate and giving us the opportunity of discussing some profound issues. I might even compete with her on the issue of "blood on the carpet" in her childhood home. My father was a dentist and I can assure the noble Baroness that there was more blood on my carpet! That is a very powerful motivation, I think, for both of us in the view we take of the health service today.
The advances in medical science over the last 50 years are a cause for congratulation as regards the scientific community and the outcome of healthy partnerships between the biological sciences, medical applications and developments in medical technology. It seems sometimes that these advances are proceeding at an exponential rate and we cannot keep up with them. Other speakers have already mentioned the book published by the BMJ entitled Clinical Futures.
I was interested in the heading of the press release in relation to that book:
"The blind may see and the deaf may hear, but society may become less tolerant".

991
I think that is one of our fears: that we may tolerate handicap or imperfection less well than we have done in the past. But we applaud the improved quality of life enjoyed by those who have had, for instance, a heart by-pass operation or hip replacement or an infection treated with antibiotics. The relief is often palpable, and very often you can tell the relief from pain from the expression on a person's face. I should like to congratulate all who have been concerned in those advances.
I was told yesterday that information technology itself may well result in greater savings to the health service than medical science. We already see applications of information technology in services such as NHS Direct, which was launched by the Secretary of State last Friday at the Royal College of Nursing. It is a system of telephone triage, advice and referral given by nurses which can bring tremendous savings in the primary care services; but it also means that nurses have to learn new skills. I was going around in my old-fashioned way asking; "How do they advise a patient; how do they assess what is wrong unless they see the patient and unless they can touch the patient?" They have to learn new skills to do that.
It is right that we should pause from time to time and look at what these advances are doing to our National Health Service. In my early days I was taught that one of the major links in the whole National Health Service was the importance of prevention, health education and self-care. I think that the public may increasingly be looking to highly technological care and advances in medical science rather than looking to self-care—looking after ourselves and preventing ill health. I am glad to see that advances are being made in the healthy living centres which are being set up. We look forward to seeing what they will do. I am also glad to see that the public has an increasing recognition of the importance of healthy diet and exercise, even in the Palace of Westminster.
The second consideration that I wish to look at is what the advances in medical science do to other professions, particularly nursing. The noble Baroness dealt with that in wonderful detail. Over the years, I have seen nurses provide a convenient source of assistance to doctors in the conduct of medical research, in the administration and monitoring of complex drug regimes and in the use of medical equipment. As medical advances proceed so doctors tend to become busier and delegate some of their less-skilled tasks to nurses. In turn, the registered nurse becomes busy and delegates some of the caring aspects to the nursing assistant. But now hospital care is so complex and highly skilled that the kind of caring that people need in that setting requires complex knowledge and competency. I would be loath to see too much of the caring in those technological settings left to assistant nurses rather than registered nurses.
I am concerned because so often I hear, both from nurses and the public, the following question: "What has happened to the caring role of the nurse?" Indeed, that was the kind of remark that was fed into the survey of the Royal College of Nursing. The growing emphasis on specialist and technical skill was seen as risking
992
alienating patients who hold great store by, "someone to be kind, to tell me what's going on, to be on my side and to hold my hand". I am sure that that is still an extremely important role for nurses in a situation where patients may be very frightened by what is happening to them. So I would commend that we give due care to what happens to the caring role of the nurse as the work of the profession increases in complexity.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate my noble friend both on tabling the debate and on opening it with such a knowledgeable and moving speech. I am very pleased that the House is debating the issue this afternoon in such a sense of shared concern for the future of the NHS and its quality, without any political name-calling. Every government come into power with an ambition to improve the health of the nation and to preserve the NHS, of which we are all so justifiably proud. The ways in which these goals are met may differ from one government to another, but I hope that the Minister can acknowledge that the previous government worked hard to improve and protect the National Health Service, just as the present Government are also doing.
As one who is privileged to work in a community among scientific researchers, I should like to take my few minutes this afternoon to celebrate the advances in medical science which have taken place over the past 50 years and the research upon which they are based. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that health provision in the 1940s was largely in the hands of general practitioners. For most people, the family doctor was their major resource, and hospitals were places where you went only if you were very ill. The rising tide of expectation towards more sophisticated medical procedures was still little more than a ripple: most babies were born at home; infectious diseases like scarlet fever and whooping cough were a feature of the lives of children; diseases like tuberculosis and polio took a huge toll; cancer was still a word to be spoken in a whisper, as it carried an almost certain sentence of death; and people over the age of 70 were very old indeed. The childless remained childless unless they could adopt and, crucially, the diagnosis of disease still relied largely on the trained and experienced instincts of the general practitioner, who, with the best will in the world, inevitably sometimes got it wrong.
Today, all that has changed. Any symptom beyond a snuffly cold tends to find the patient subjected, sometimes willy-nilly, to a battery of hospital-based diagnostic tests involving the use of sophisticated and expensive technology. Diagnosis is so much more accurate and early, and thousands of lives are saved by the miracles of radiology, nuclear medicine, brain imaging, MRI, ultrasound and a host of other diagnostic techniques. That essential threshold of accurate diagnosis raises standards across medical practice beyond the wildest dreams of 50 years ago. One of the features of this diagnostic technology is the transparency of the results to the patient. Today, increased information about ourselves and our health is available to all of us as patients. But this is only the beginning.

993
We have already seen transplant surgery become an every-day accepted part of life. Now we have developments in bio-technology, which seemed like science fiction only a decade ago, and, as other speakers have said, the cloning of human tissue is this week's new and lively issue. Yesterday, Professor Ron Laskey in Cambridge University announced a new method of identifying cells which are replicating abnormally—a breakthrough in cancer research of huge possibilities.
Indeed, these are things to celebrate. We should give thanks for the women and men of scientific discovery who, working in independent laboratories in universities or in commercial pharmaceutical companies, have provided us with the great leaps of knowledge that make our lives so much richer and our expectations of our own future and our children's future so joyfully abundant. But the funding for such research must continue. "Blue skies" research is the fundamental base upon which all other applied research depends and it will not be funded through private, profit-making companies. It is the responsibility of any civilised government to continue to put money into "blue skies" basic scientific research.
However, those developments, like the contents of Pandora's box, cannot be taken out or put back at will. Once they have been launched they form part of the expectations of an entire population. We cannot go on pretending that these expectations can be met by public money alone. There is already rationing in the National Health Service, and to a degree there has always been. Services provided in the public sector, just like goods provided by the private retail sector, are restricted by our ability to pay, whether as individuals or as a nation.
The health service already generously funds research at regional and national level which bears upon its immediate responsibilities. Could it not be persuaded to direct some of its research into looking at ways in which the service itself could be made more cost-effective, with a detached and long-term view of its future organisation, free of any immediate political imperatives? Perhaps a closer review could be made of the way in which GPs prescribe so readily to all their patients. The expectation that there must be a pill to cure everything from colds and flu to minor mood swings, is one which must be broken. I welcome the Government's emphasis on preventive medicine and on primary healthcare to keep as many people as possible out of the loop of expensive and secondary healthcare. That must be one of the ways ahead.
We value our National Health Service, and rightly so. It exists alongside superb private medicine and I believe that it should continue to do so. The health service is a priceless resource. It has served us magnificently for more than five decades and I have every confidence that it will continue to do so in the future. But all its advances depend on the continued achievement of scientific research, government-funded. The researchers of this country have done us proud so far and they deserve every support in the future.
7 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberledge, for initiating this debate.
Yesterday human spare-part cloning hit the headlines. Will the door be opened to human cloning in the next 50 years? Having seen so many complicated disabilities, one knows how important research is to alleviate serious illness and disease. The fast-developing biotechnology now seems to know no bounds. Scientists have progressed with cloning calves since Dolly the sheep. There is a concern that the development of medical technology has not been accompanied by morality. Life is becoming very complicated indeed.
During the past 50 years we have seen the wonderful development of antibiotics and how they have combated serious infection. But now we are experiencing drug-resistant strains of infection, which means that the superbugs are winning. With the scientific advancement of heart, liver and kidney replacements and the vulnerability of patients with suppressed immuno systems, basic hygiene should not be neglected.
It is difficult to imagine what may happen in the next 50 years, but the world is small and we should not be complacent about infection control. Drug-resistant tuberculosis has appeared in our modern society. Cases of TB are increasing. In the past 16 years we have seen HIV/AIDS appear and that has proved a challenge to the scientific and medical experts.
It is also a challenge to the pharmaceutical industry to find the correct drugs. It is a challenge to the health authorities to provide them. Sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhoea and herpes are increasing in many groups. Good health education is so essential.
There are so many fields of medicine which need researching, and the availability of the correct drugs can make a much better quality of life. It seems very unjust that someone with cancer or multiple sclerosis should have his drugs dictated by his postal code. I hope that this will be corrected.
It is most important that the pharmaceutical industry brings out more antibiotics and useful drugs, and that the drugs become available to all those people who will benefit from them. I hope that the Minister will agree that there should be more teaching in medical schools about the importance of prescribing correctly.
I ask the Minister what progress there is on screening for diabetes. Diabetes is a complicated condition and the number of cases is expected to double by the year 2010. Why is this? At the moment, about 123 million people world-wide suffer from diabetes. If diabetes is not detected it can cause strokes and heart disease. People need to know what to look out for and to be monitored.
As president of the Spinal Injuries Association, I should like some assurances from the Minister that people with spinal injuries who become paralysed will get the correct treatment in a spinal injuries unit. Over the past 50 years, this has not only been of great benefit to the patients but cost-effective to the health service. People who become paraplegic, if not treated correctly, can get many complications and cause unnecessary

995
expense. If treated in a general ward without specially trained staff, patients are at risk of pressure-sores, sepsis, urinary infection, bowel problems and depression. General hospitals do not usually have the equipment needed. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the 11 UK spinal injury units providing specialist treatment and care receive the funding and support needed to continue their high quality service and improve on co-operation between agencies.
We hear much about a primary-led NHS. I am concerned that the new primary health groups are not fairly balanced. There will be seven GPs, no dentist, no pharmacist and only one lay person. The consumer representation is too weak. The doctors will be away from their patients and will have to find substitutes. With the complex matter of drugs and the cost involved, it is a pity that a pharmacist will not be a full member. If pharmacists are co-opted on to the groups, they will not have voting rights.
Let me end by asking the Minister what is to be the complaint procedure. We have seen the terrible cover-up of cases relating to doctors in Bristol. Having served on a Family Health Service Authority, I know that there can be problems involving doctors and dentists of negligence, alcohol abuse, drugs and sex. Will the doctors be self-regulatory or will an independent body do this work? I hope that the Government get it right as the good relationships between doctors and patients are very important. The public have high expectations of their doctors, but these can be easily damaged if doctors play God and patients feel let down.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate and my noble friend's initiative in tabling her Motion.
Earlier in the year we looked backwards to celebrate 50 years of an evolving, ever-changing National Health Service. It is changing because of the amazing and wonderful advances in our knowledge of science and technology; it is changing because of the very natural rises in people's expectation because of the increased information available to them, a point to which my noble friend Lady Perry referred. It is changing because I think we all now recognise that affordability is a factor and that there is not an unlimited pot of money available. So those who have to make difficult decisions on priorities—the Minister will be well aware of that—must be able to do so with the best possible information and data available in order to try to achieve that element of equity to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
These changes are not something which affect us and the National Health Service in isolation. Every country in the world is looking at its health service and seeking better and more comprehensive services within its means. Two weeks ago I was in Argentina, leading a trade mission supported by the Department of Trade and Industry which focused on healthcare. The interest there in how we managed things here made me realise, once again, how the National Health Service is regarded as a model. So we should be aware that what we do and what we plan to do is of interest not only to ourselves but to many others.
996
Looking forward in the terms of the Motion before us, I believe that the prospect is very exciting. New frontiers are constantly being challenged, but we also have to exercise caution. Perhaps at this point I should declare an interest as a non-executive director of Smithkline Beecham. In the light of the merger announced today between Zeneca and Astra, perhaps I should say that the rationale behind many of the mega mergers of global pharmaceutical companies is the need to put more and more funding into research and development. There can of course be other synergies, but the cost of and the need for research and development are usually the main driver. Many, many millions of pounds go into exploring ways of making existing drugs more effective and treatment more appropriate as well as into researching new drugs. It is from this background that I should like to focus on advances in genetics. In doing so, I hope to complement what others, in particular my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, have said.
I am not a scientist either but I can grasp that advances in genetics are allowing us to understand the molecular basis of disease. We are starting to be able to determine which genes are involved in quite complex diseases. This increased understanding is revolutionising the way medicines and other healthcare products—for example, diagnostics and vaccines—are being developed. Today, more and more pharmaceutical research and development is based on genetics. I accept that within probably a five to 10-year timeframe this new understanding will revolutionise the way medicines are delivered to patients. We are beginning to understand that any one disease can be made up of a cluster of different conditions which may respond to different medical interventions. In addition, we are beginning to understand why different individuals respond to drugs in different ways. If we are able to determine precisely how to give the right drug in the right dose to the right patient at the right time there will be huge benefits for the National Health Service, for patients, for the Government and for the industry too.
I therefore believe that the National Health Service needs to look at the implications of genetics for healthcare and healthcare delivery now in order to be able to ensure that patients in the United Kingdom reap the maximum benefits from this research when products start to come on line. They are a reality. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me in that respect.
When I did my stint as a Minister in the Department of Health I had responsibility for the international side. As I said at the outset of my remarks, the issues raised in this debate are not ones we should consider in isolation. So, apart from co-operation in medical education and research, there are also issues of intellectual property rights, patent protection and indeed ethical and moral considerations which must be dealt with fully and must be dealt with, I believe, at an international level, whether within the European Union, the Council of Europe or the World Health Organisation. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me that the Government intend to play a full part in that.

997
I wish the National Health Service another 50 years of vigorous life and growth and I trust that it will look outwards in doing so as well as forwards.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has given us a very difficult task—six minutes to cover the next 50 years. I am aware that that is not the noble Baroness's fault. In fact this very tight timing, as it has turned out, was not necessary. I shall restrict my remarks to one aspect only: equity of access.
The National Health Service will try, as it always has, to make the best treatment available to all, regardless of social status or area of residence, a point made by the noble Baroness herself and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely. Equity was one of the founding principles of the National Health Service. Of course it has not always been successful in achieving this, and middle class people and more affluent areas have managed to carve out a better service for themselves. That was encapsulated in 1972 by Dr. Julian Tudor Hart in The Inverse Care Law.
Things have certainly improved since then but there are still too many discrepancies in the standard of care between different regions and social groups. For instance, coronary bypass grafts and angioplasty are more frequently done in some health authorities than others—up to four times more frequently, I gather—and this variation is not at all related to the prevailing rates of coronary heart disease.
However, I am sure that my noble friend would agree that the overall "Healthier Nation" for which we are looking depends on the best practices being available across the country. Although the National Health Service is not the main determinant of mortality and morbidity rates, which have much wider determinants—I wish we had more time to discuss that point—the National Health Service contributes hugely to the quality of people's lives. A top priority must be the achievement of equal access, not only to expensive high-tech interventions, which usually, but not always, affect a minority, but also to high quality primary and community care and well-staffed and efficient hospitals.
The Acheson report on Inequalities in Health, which we received two weeks ago, states on page 116:
"An inverse care law is still evident in relation to the distribution of medical and nursing staff in relation to need. A number of studies have shown that deprived areas suffer increasing difficulties in recruiting general practitioners and this inequity extends beyond that of GPs to other primary care staff, including practice nurses, health visitors and district nurses".
My noble friend may care to outline how the changes in primary care which the Government propose will affect these questions of equity. It is a safe guess that more benefit to more people will come from bringing the best medical care that already exists in the National Health Service to all parts of the country and to all social and ethnic groups, than by expending very large sums on technical innovations which affect only a few.
However, this is not to deny that scientific advance is not only essential but also inevitable and highly desirable. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble
998
Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, we learn almost daily of new and exciting developments. But if, after proper assessment—and the Government's initiative in setting up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Commission for Health Improvement (CHIMP) will help this evaluation—an innovation is found to be effective, particularly if it is cost-effective, it should rapidly be made available to all those in clinical need across the National Health Service. There will of course be strong pressure to favour those areas which can most effectively articulate their need—those who shout loudest—but I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that equity will reign and that strong efforts will be made to ensure that those with the greatest clinically measured need, even if they are suffering quietly, will come first.
Of course this will inevitably require increased resources—both achieving equity and accommodating technical progress—but this is right and proper as our GNP rises. In fact, we spend a lower proportion of our GNP on health than any other country at an equivalent economic level. It is worth pointing out that a proportion of scientific advances may actually save money by, for instance, avoiding hospital admissions, or enabling patients to continue working, or by avoiding more expensive forms of investigation or treatment. As new methods and technologies are to be brought in, there must be a culture that allows for the exit of forms of practice that have been shown to be unnecessary or ineffective. Some of these are costly in themselves.
Only this morning I read for the first time the book Clinical Futures. The chapter by Professor Peckham, who was the first director of R&D in the NHS, a post created in response to the report of your Lordships' Science and Technology Select Committee, is particularly relevant to tonight's debate and I commend it to the House. Six minutes is too short to attempt even a summary. But I should like to conclude with his words:
"The future must be seen as an integration of scientific medicine within a broader framework that tackles social and other determinants of health. This is not an 'either or' choice but an absolute requirement if there is to be a balanced approach to health development".
7.20 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, once again, I am filling in as "tail-end Charlie". It has been a wonderful and stimulating debate. I am immensely grateful to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for giving us the opportunity to consider the achievements of the National Health Service over the past 50 years and its future prospects.
In opening, my noble friend was kind enough to refer to my noble friend Lady Hooper who sits behind me. However, I heard her also refer to me as "Lady Lyell". I know that there are three others and that miracles occur, but not necessarily in six minutes in your Lordships' House!
My noble friend may remember that in a previous incarnation she asked me to read research material more thoroughly and not to muddle appetite-depressants with contraceptives. She said that I, as a bachelor, might have thought that they were the same. I do not! As I have

999
said, I am immensely grateful to my noble friend for giving us this opportunity to look at what she calls the "rising expectations" for the National Health Service over the next 50 years.
In 1948, I was nine years old. I remember being at school where I contracted a disease known as glandular fever. I was told that I was wet, gutless and would be unable to play football or do all the other things which the Ministers' sons do. I managed to come through that.
I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is back in his place. Forty years ago, I achieved a spectacular own goal in a town well known to my noble friend Lord Astor. I am delighted to see him joining us on the Front Bench again. I went skiing in a town called Davos and suffered a triple fracture of the leg. The next morning I had immediate surgery. However, something called "complications" arose. I await comments on that from my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich, if he has the time. I spent five weeks in Davos Hospital and a further five months in plaster. There were further complications and I spent another three months in plaster in 1960, followed by six weeks in hospital. That was a self-inflicted injury. I have also broken hands, an ankle, and have dislocated my shoulders when skiing. However, all that pales into insignificance, as always in your Lordships' House, when compared with the sheer guts and courage, if I may call it that, of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. We extend to her our admiration. We are delighted that she is speaking in this debate. Following the appalling injuries that she suffered in, I think, 1958 or 1959, she is now just a little slower than normal.
One can have self-inflicted orthopaedic injuries, but I am thinking also of what I call the "self-inflicted injuries of over-indulgence in a normal lifestyle", perhaps in your Lordships' House. I am a Scot and an accountant. I have two remedies. One is called a weighing machine or bathroom scales. The second is the waistband of my trousers. Although I am a Scot, I am not wearing a kilt! Incidentally, I enjoyed the description by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of the body contours of people wearing leisure suits. My noble friend Lord Astor and I will remember that when the Lords and Commons Ski Club goes out on the second Friday of January to challenge our Swiss friends on a terrifyingly fast giant slalom slope. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right, but we lack nothing in application!
How can we get round the problems of self-inflicted injuries in normal lifestyle? I took some advice from the pharmaceutical industry this morning. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, quoted some interesting figures about occupation and length of stay in hospital, thus saving me 20 seconds of my time because I shall not have to repeat that. I was fascinated to learn that, according to the OECD medical report, the cost of medicines per head in the United Kingdom is about £86 per year. The comparative figure in Japan is £277. I wonder what the Japanese get up to or what they are gulping down. The figure for France is over £200. According to the OECD, the only nation with a figure lower than ours is the Republic of Ireland, at £77. I call that the "PTAD syndrome". In Ireland it is known as being "partial to a drop". Your Lordships can discuss
1000
the liquid! However, there must be something in the lifestyle of everybody in Ireland to account for that figure. I do not understand why, but that is some indication of what medicines can do for your Lordships and for everybody in terms of saving the NHS the cost of hospital treatments.
I was absolutely "stunned"—I hope that that is a reasonable word to use—by the speech of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, which was excellent, even by his own standards. He expressed perfectly what I think is the path of the National Health Service and, indeed, the pharmaceutical industry over the next 50 years. I enjoyed my noble friend's comments about the left-handed cars, but I think that he spells it "Kerr". He will be aware that if my right honourable friend, who calls himself "Ancram", did not have that name, he would be a Kerr. In view of the events of the past week, perhaps he may care to repeat that—certainly, I would.
My noble friend Lady Hooper referred to a massive merger which has been reported today. I understand that the revenues of the two combined companies will be in the region of 14 billion dollars. That compares with a figure of 35 billion dollars for the largest United States company. The same report in the Financial Times advises that the cost of creating what it calls a "blockbuster" drug is 500 million dollars. That compares with the possible revenues, if you get it right, of I billion dollars. Those are the figures with which the industry, which is so well represented by my noble friend, is dealing. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding also referred to the prospects of that industry in terms of science and reviews. I hope that on a future occasion I shall be able to discuss the pharmaceutical industry and its costs, let alone all the pills. I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for giving us this opportunity.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add the thanks of these Benches to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for initiating this debate and for the typically thoughtful spirit in which she introduced it.
This has been a fascinating debate, covering a broad range of scientific, moral, ethical, medical and, indeed, commercial points. The only slightly worrying part of the debate was when the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, looked directly at me when talking about "over-indulgence" in this House. I wondered whether he had discovered some awful secret.
Clearly, one of the required pieces of reading for this debate has been the BMA's book, Clinical Futures. Some of those medical scenarios fill me with considerable optimism: the fact that genetics and genome research will open up so many opportunities for new treatments and for identifying risk factors; the new scanning techniques which could allow instant diagnosis; and the dramatic improvement in the monitoring of health indicators.
On the other hand, other aspects fill me with gloom. I refer to the fact that because of our ability to "genetically select", we could have less tolerance of those born with disabilities; passive entertainment will

1001
enhance risk factors for heart disease and osteoporosis; and we shall rely on drugs rather than on a change in lifestyle to counter such risks. All those aspects carry major implications for the health service in the next century.
To those factors we can add a number of other challenges for the NHS which have already emerged, such as increased life expectancy; a shift in emphasis from life-saving treatments to treatments which improve the quality of life—many of them relatively expensive; and a move towards more preventive medicine and even possibly a re-emergence of infectious diseases. As a result of the recent report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to which many noble Lords have referred, we now have in prospect what could amount to the manufacture of human spare parts or "cell nucleus replacement", as I have no doubt that we should learn to call it.
Above all, we are moving into an era of greater consumer demands, from what Professor Rudolph Klein has called the "church" model—a paternalist system, driven by doctors where solely they determine what treatment is received—to the "garage" model, where the consumer takes his or her body in for repair and retains control over what happens to it. The desire—indeed, demand—for more information is a key part of that movement. Patients now have the ability to access information from helplines and the Internet in a way they never had before, which in itself provides a challenge to clinicians, particularly when some of that information is of poor quality.
Those are issues which the Government need to take on board now. The future is already with us. My honourable friend Mr. Simon Hughes, in the debate on the Queen's Speech in the other place, described the key problems of the NHS today as being those of the new three Rs: rationing, recruitment and resources.
I want to take the opportunity today to talk about two of those three. Our healthcare spending at 6.9 per cent. of GDP is lower than that of a great many European countries where the average is 7.7 per cent., but we have the best value health service, as a proportion of GDP, in the world, and we should be prepared to pay more for it. However, there are no great new sources of income. Hypothecated tobacco taxes, as suggested by my party, would make a useful addition to NHS revenue, but would not make a dramatic difference.
Levying charges for health services has been a perennial suggestion ever since the health service was formed. The new road traffic (NHS charges) Act is an attempt to claw back some income for hospital trusts other than through taxation. But there must be a limit to this process. My party rejects any move to hotel-type charges or charges for seeing general practitioners. We believe that the universality of the health service must be retained. Just to stand still, however, the NHS needs a real income increase of at least 3 per cent. a year. At the end of the day, whatever taxation policy is adopted and whatever additional money the Department of Health manages to wring out of the Treasury, we have to accept that there will always be rationing at the edges.
1002
As new developments emerge, there will never be enough money to fund every treatment or test or procedure.
As anyone knows who is close to the health service, whether as professional or patient, rationing decisions are being taken every day of the week. Many noble Lords have mentioned that. However, government Ministers claim that that does not happen. The Conservatives, after 18 years of denial when in government, have finally acknowledged the problem now they are in opposition. Miss Widdecombe has ironically called for a mature debate on the subject. The Government, on the other hand, believe that problems will not arise if we set up enough new bodies—such as NICE and the commission for health improvement—to ensure that new treatments are clinically effective. We should put our faith in what is called evidence based medicine and the necessary resources will be found. That was very much the tenor of the previous government's response to the 1995 Commons Health Select Committee which called for a new national framework.
However, we on these Benches believe that we have to acknowledge and tackle the problem. We need to understand what people's expectations are and what responsibilities they and the NHS have. As Professor Klein says, the fact that no patient under the current system has a legal right to specific treatment means that the clinician decides what the patient needs and political problems are in effect converted into clinical problems. It is time that politicians grasped the nettle.
The NHS is currently one of our best loved institutions. There is still a high degree of trust. Recent developments, however, whether it is the publicity surrounding new so-called lifestyle drugs such as Xenical and Viagra, or cancer patients being unable to get access to a number of treatments involving Taxol and Taxotere which can prolong life for up to 14 months, or the fact that schizophrenia patients are unable to obtain Clozapine and other atypical anti-psychotic drugs, have all highlighted the rationing issue. Postcode rationing is no longer a surprise but a fact of life.
Above all, it is cases like that of Child B. Jaymee Bowen, described in the recent study by Chris Ham for the King's Fund, which starkly illustrate the need for a properly informed public debate leading to public and transparent policies. We cannot just muddle through relying on the occasional blustering edict from the Secretary of State. It is becoming increasingly obvious to the public that if the Government have ruled out increased taxation, not all treatments can be funded. They perceive that rationing is taking place.
If the basis of that rationing is not made clear, trust in the NHS will inevitably be eroded. Polls have made it clear that there is already a level of cynicism with regard to the NHS, its ability to deliver services in the way that it has to date, and even its ability to survive the next 50 years. We need to make sure that new clinical developments are seen as an opportunity for the NHS, not as a threat.

1003
I know about the kinds of clinical decisions that have to be made. My late wife fought a battle for five years with ovarian cancer. She was also a doctor and one of the lucky ones. In those days, the late 80s, because hospital consultants took the rationing decisions, she was able to take advantage of every new treatment as it came along in case it provided a long-term cure. In the time that she was kept alive she founded CancerBACUP which since then has helped hundreds of thousands of cancer patients with information and support. That was 1987, before the health service reforms of 1991. I wonder what would happen now. As we speak, on cost grounds cancer patients are being denied the drugs that would certainly prolong their lives. Whatever decisions are made, they should be transparent and they should be taken with the fullest public knowledge and consent. We need to get the balance right between individual clinical discretion and national priorities.
We on these Benches propose a national standing conference. However, its role would not be to determine a core package of healthcare to be available. The key role of such a standing conference should, I believe, be advisory and not prescriptive. Its role would be to establish a clear set of values and guidelines to clarify the decision making process which would then be applied by local health authorities, trusts and GPs in order to ensure that patients are entitled to equal and consistent treatment; and to ensure that they are given clear treatment options and proper reasons where treatment is denied by the decision makers themselves, and long-term counselling for families affected by decisions not to treat. It is not a question of precisely which services are provided, but how decisions are made and who takes them.
A new NHS charter could be part of this equation. We should give proper consideration to the report of Greg Dykes—for whom I have a considerable regard—but any priorities or charter decided by the standing conference must have legitimacy. It cannot just be drawn up by one man, however able. No rationing solution is ideal, but I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to acknowledge and to tackle the issue in the new modernisation of the NHS Bill.
7.35 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for drawing our attention to this important subject. In considering the rising expectations and advances in medical science and how they will impact on the NHS over the next 50 years, I would like to discuss two serious issues which have surfaced recently and which threaten those rising expectations.
The first involves some worrying developments in the postgraduate training of doctors. If this training is undermined, the NHS clearly will be in jeopardy. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the average age at which doctors qualify in this country is about 24. If they wish to specialise in hospital work, they then embark on a 10 to 17 years' training programme before they are appointed consultants. If they fail to secure a consultant post after this period of time, there is nowhere for them to go in this country because we have this huge
1004
monopoly employer, the National Health Service. They either have to leave medicine or to start training in some other speciality. That, again, may take many years.
I am not suggesting for a moment that everyone who trains to be a consultant should automatically secure such a post, but there has to be a sensible relationship between the number we train and the number of vacancies that will be available at the end of their training. In a debate in your Lordships' House last week the noble Lord, Lord Winston, drew attention to the plight of trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology where far too many have been trained and the number of consultant posts has been reduced. There soon may be as many as 200 fully trained personnel waiting for consultant posts with little hope of ever achieving that status.
The present junior staff training scheme was devised by Sir Kenneth Calman and should have been implemented many years ago. In criticising the present state of affairs I am well aware that it is easy to criticise and to make speeches about a subject without doing anything to help. I would like to point out that the present training scheme was based on a surgical training scheme which I introduced into the south-east region in 1972 which ran for 15 years. It was based on the principle which was later adopted by Sir Kenneth Calman whereby trainees were taken in for complete training. They were given the security of knowing that they could stay in the programme until they were fully trained provided their progress was satisfactory. Half the time was spent in district general hospitals, half in teaching hospitals, with the possibility of a year abroad. The idea was to enable the trainees to do all their training from one centre so that their families could settle in one district and not have to move around the country. This greatly improved the quality of life of the trainees. In order not to train too many consultants for the number of posts available, half the trainees were from the Commonwealth and returned to their own countries at the end of the training programme. The other cardinal feature was that no new trainees were taken on until those at the top had found permanent employment, provided that their progress was satisfactory and that they were making a serious attempt to secure a consultant post.
A major defect in the present programme is that when the trainees come to the end of their training they are replaced by new trainees, who start at the beginning. As we are dealing with a monopoly employer, there is nowhere for those trainees to go. It is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I do not seek to blame anyone; I certainly do not blame the Government. However, the question arises as to who authorises the advertisements for the new posts. I suspect that it is the postgraduate deans who are ultimately responsible. Whoever it is, will the Government encourage them to stop advertising for new trainees and simply continue to employ the present trainees until they secure permanent appointments? It seems obvious, does it not?
Furthermore, will the Government give urgent attention to increasing the number of consultant posts in obstetrics and gynaecology to restore them to their previous number? There has been a cut in the number

1005
of consultants over the past year or two. The Government are to make available some £20 billion of extra money. Could some of it be used to create more consultant posts, as originally planned? Apart from that being a reasonable and humane solution to a major problem, it might also save the NHS many hundreds of millions of pounds in huge legal settlements made by the courts as a result of alleged mistakes in medical practice, which are made more common by gross under-staffing. There are fewer consultants per head of population in this country than in any other European country. We desperately need to create more consultant posts. I hope that the Government will reverse the cuts that have occurred over the past year in the creation of new posts. We owe it to patients, junior medical staff and medical students.
In this country we are very fortunate in the quality of the younger generation in medicine. Their academic standards, professional expertise, kindness and service to patients is better than it has ever been. And their sense of humour is as good as ever. A professor of forensic medicine was lecturing students on homicide and gunshot wounds when he suddenly mentioned that he was worried about becoming senile. He said that he had an agreement with his wife, also a forensic expert, that she would arrange a shotgun accident to carry him off if she saw any signs of senility in him. A student at the back of the lecture theatre shouted out: "Left it a bit a late, hasn't she?".
The second subject to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the way in which morale is being undermined by an obsession with reducing the numbers on waiting lists. For 20 years the Labour Party campaigned to discredit previous Conservative governments over their handling of the NHS, pretending that they were privatising it, destroying it and greatly increasing the number of people on the waiting lists. They set great store by their claim that they would reduce waiting lists. Unfortunately, last year the lists started to rise dramatically, so they began a campaign to reduce them again.
It is an interesting campaign. It consists of a number of fiddles. The first is to transfer patients from the main waiting lists to subsidiary waiting lists which do not appear in official returns to the Department of Health. Therefore those patients do not appear in the waiting list statistics. That little game began in June 1998, interestingly at exactly the same time as there seemed to be a reduction in the waiting lists. Bradford Hospital NHS Trust has been told that orthopaedic patients waiting for the removal of internal fixations (pieces of metal and so on) are to be included on a new list and that that is not to be included in the official waiting list statistics.
The second fiddle is to have waiting lists for the waiting lists. There are increasing delays for patients simply to have their name put on a waiting list. That slows the rates down, hence making it appear that there is a reduction. Some consultants are holding fewer clinics, so fewer patients are being seen to be placed on
1006
a waiting list. Frenchay Healthcare Trust has almost a two-year wait for an appointment to see an orthopaedic surgeon.
The third fiddle is that some patients are being denied operations altogether: for varicose veins, sebaceous cysts and lipomas. The people of Bermondsey are very angry that they are having to pay hundreds of pounds for operations to be done privately which until recently were available on the NHS. Will the Government put that matter right?
The fourth fiddle is to encourage simple procedures being carried out ahead of more serious ones, thus reducing the numbers on the waiting list. It means that those with serious conditions wait longer. The Government's own figures show that the list of those who waited more than 12 months has more than doubled, from 31,000 to 63,000. One of the great contributions that Virginia Bottomley made to the NHS was radically to reduce to under a year the waiting time for almost all patients. She ought to receive credit for that.
The fifth fiddle is an aggressively repeated inquiry as to whether a patient still requires treatment. It includes a new method of including targets for a number of patients to be removed from lists.
These techniques are not good for patients. They undermine morale. They are not good for the caring professions. It is an extraordinarily demoralising exercise. Could the Government see their way to admitting that perhaps they have indulged in a little propaganda over the past 20 years? Will they admit their mistake and try to put matters right, and stop the fiddles?
These problems are pertinent to rising expectations for the future of the NHS. I have never really considered the main problem of the NHS to be a shortage of money. The major problem is one of decline in morale, not only among those who work in the NHS but also among patients.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing what has been a fascinating debate. Perhaps I may respond to the tenor of the majority of comments rather than that of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I am afraid the noble Lord repeated allegations and slurs that are completely untrue regarding this Government's record in terms of finally turning the tide of rising waiting lists that we inherited.
Without going through each point of the noble Lord's remarks, I can tell him that there has been no change whatever in the basis on which statistics are collected. That has been made absolutely clear in correspondence. I was particularly upset to hear the noble Lord repeat the allegation against Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust. It has caused great concern to the staff working there. The chairman of that trust specifically wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hague, asking him not to repeat allegations that the figures were being fiddled in any way.

1007
I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time dealing with what tend to be party-political points in a debate that has been far more wide-ranging.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to ask one question. What am I supposed to say to the people of Bermondsey who are angry that they cannot have their operations for varicose veins, sebaceous cysts and lipomas done on the NHS when always in the past they could? Please will the Minister tell me what I am supposed to say to them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is supposed to say that the priority given to certain procedures, particularly cosmetic procedures, is a matter for local decision-making. That has always gone on within the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out how important it is to have processes that are clear, explicit and transparent for priority-setting within the National Health Service. We have to recognise that we are all setting priorities, particularly in times of rising expectations—as the noble Baroness points out in her Motion—and when we are looking at a variety of new things that it is possible for us to do. We are improving the service available to patients year on year.
Returning to the spirit in which the noble Baroness introduced her Motion, everyone who spoke paid tribute to the work of the NHS. I think I am the third noble Baroness to admit to having a father who joined the NHS at its inception. My father, too, was a dentist and I, too, had blood on the carpet. That makes three of us; perhaps that is what made us end up in politics!
This evening is an opportunity to recognise, and pay tribute to, the achievements of the NHS over the past 50 years and to say a little about what the Government are doing to address the issues and to ensure that the NHS is fit to meet the exciting challenges of the next 50 years. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley rightly reminded us that, while for many of us the NHS is a fact of life, for many older people the grief and worry that paying for care meant to so many is still with them and still affects the way in which they make demands upon the service. The NHS lifted the burden of anxiety about ill health which so affected previous generations. It was one of the best civilising endeavours ever undertaken by a Labour government on behalf of the people. It has been applauded abroad and cherished at home as part of our nation's fabric.
It is cherished for the reasons highlighted by the right reverend Prelate. It symbolises the right of an individual to the dignity of healthcare based on need and not on wealth. It is a tangible experience of what we mean by "community"—working together and paying taxes together to create and sustain a service in the interests of every individual within that community. I agree with him that the NHS has at its heart a moral imperative, even if perhaps not a religious one.
Over 50 years the NHS has transformed the delivery of healthcare and helped to bring about a dramatic improvement in the length and quality of life enjoyed by millions of people. National immunisation programmes
1008
ensured that killer diseases such as polio, smallpox, TB, and diphtheria were conquered. There has been an 80 per cent. reduction in the number of children dying before their 14th year. Life expectancy is up for men from 66 years to 75 years and for women from 71 years to 80 years. People are attached to the NHS not just for sentimental reasons but also because they know it works—although I have to say to your Lordships, after two weeks of spreading coughs and sneezes across the Floor of the House, that there are still those dark corners that scientific research has not yet penetrated!
However, our pride in the achievements of the past 50 years does not mean that we should stay in a system in which we recognise no need for change. There are enormous challenges. We have set ourselves targets and ambitions for the next 50 years which are challenging in the extreme. We aim to improve health, to tackle inequalities and to modernise services. If we are to do that and to keep up with the advances in technology and the scientific challenges to which so many noble Lords have referred today, it is essential that we not only look at technological advance but also tackle the root causes of ill health and the inequalities in health status that were highlighted by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Rea.
I listened carefully to the debate. There were many references to the demands that would be made on the service and the need for extra resources to meet those demands; but I did not hear as much as we could have heard about issues of prevention and improving health, thus reducing demand. In particular, the programme that the Government will shortly set out for reducing smoking and tobacco consumption is a prime area in which we can reduce the need to spend money as well as the terrible toll on individuals and families caused by the effects of smoking.
It was right that the debate inevitably dealt with some fairly challenging scientific concepts. The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, rightly reminded us not only of the need to ensure that the professionals who work within the health service have the skills, training and education to meet the much more demanding tasks that we ask of them but also that in the emphasis on a more highly trained nursing workforce it is important that we do not lose our recognition that care and human contact are a vital part of training. The same is true with regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, about the need to ensure that the training of medical students recognises the enormous challenges and changes that there will be in the science base on which they are working. That is an important area for medical education to address. In addition, we need to ensure that the ability to communicate with patients is included in the medical education curriculum to deal with the rising expectations of a better informed patient base, a point referred to by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley.
There has been much talk about the clinical futures laid out in the book produced partly by the British Medical Journal. I was involved with that and attended the conference for the launch of the book. This gives us immense possibilities. If we put on our "retrospectoscopes", we could all predict that there will

1009
be enormous change, but not what that enormous change will be. How the human genome project translates into service demands and possibilities is something that we do not know, but we know that we need to know. The work being done by the MRC and the NHS R&D programme are important ways of addressing some of the implications.
I should like to emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Rea that we too often tend to see new technology as simply an extra cost pressure. We should see it first and foremost as an opportunity to benefit patients and to provide better services for them, and we should welcome it on that basis. However, we have to recognise, too, that all kinds of advances have given us the potential to spend more money on drug interventions. For example, we discussed yesterday the new and improved treatments for schizophrenia, which seem at first sight to be more expensive but which, when looked at in the light of reduced costs in terms of hospital admissions, can produce cost savings. The same is true of some of the ulcer treatments which have replaced surgery. There are many opportunities, too, in diagnostic advances, such as the possibilities that MRI has brought in replacing the need for arthroscopies. There are many opportunities for the new technology to allow us to manage conditions better and more cheaply in the community. It is not all doom and gloom. There are enormous possibilities.
A number of references were made to the recent report on the possibilities of the therapeutic applications of cloning. That report by the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the HFEA has only just been published. Ministers will want to look very closely at its conclusions and recommendations, and their implications, and will publish their response next year. I restate that Ministers have made clear that they regard the deliberate cloning of humans as ethically unacceptable. The report recognises that the current legal safeguards are wholly adequate to forbid human reproductive cloning in the UK.
There are still major challenges about possible therapeutic applications. I accept that there are wider social and ethical implications, as well as scientific ones, that need to be addressed. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. The Human Genetics Advisory Commission chaired by Professor Sir Colin Campbell has given a high priority to consideration of these issues and has been in discussion with major funders in this field, including the MRC, the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health.
Substantial reference was made by implication, and directly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to the need for evidence-based research to help to translate some of the new developments into applications within the health service. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness that the focus of the NHS R&D programme is very much on the applications end, that is the "D" rather than the "R" side of this work. We shall play our part in promoting appropriate research and try to ensure that there is the correct balance between blue sky research,
1010
albeit thematically based, that organisations like the MRC can undertake and the more applied research in which the NHS R&D programme can take part.
Noble Lords referred to the increasing expectations of society and among users of the health service. We should welcome the legitimate desire for more information. It demands a different model of decision-making as to the pattern of care and greater emphasis on partnership with local communities—I believe that that will be reflected in health improvement programmes—but also a different model of care from some members of the medical profession whose education was very different and related to a patient base that was much more deferential and not as well informed. I believe that better information can help patients make fewer demands on the health service. Perhaps a prime example of that is the prescribing of antibiotics. Better information can allow people to understand why general practitioners may not give a prescription for antibiotics both in their interests and in the wider interests of public health.
Our responsibility—it is one that the NHS information strategy will take on—is to ensure that patients have access to well referenced and reliable sources of information to allow them to take informed decisions in partnership with their clinicians. Another example of that is NHS Direct to which the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred. It demonstrates in its initial stages how the provision of the correct advice, with the technological back-up that is available to nurses who give it, can direct patients to the most appropriate services. Sometimes it may be a matter of confirming that people's conditions can be managed at home. But there is also evidence that sometimes it may be a matter of persuading people that it is better to seek emergency help because that is what is required. A service like NHS Direct can have an enormous effect upon the mismatch between understanding the symptoms and the appropriate response.
The trends in expectations and scientific developments exert extra pressure on resources. We have faced up both to the need for extra resources and the need to get better value from what has been invested. We have announced plans to spend an extra £18 billion on the NHS in England over the next three years on top of the £2.25 billion that has already been invested since we came into office. This represents the biggest cash injection in the history of the NHS and gives a stable base for longer-term planning. But this massive cash injection is targeted on change; it is an investment in reform to ensure that patients everywhere get the high quality care that they deserve. There are three elements to ensure that that happens. The crucial element has been referred to in tonight's debate: to make sure that the NHS provides cost and clinically-effective interventions. That is why the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be very important in assessing and providing information on the cost-effectiveness of existing technologies as well as new ones. It is very important that we take on the task of seeing what is new and needs to be introduced and assessing what has not been effective in the past and stopping it to free up resources to do what is better. National service

1011
frameworks will be of enormous importance both in terms of producing better evidence and giving guidance on best service configurations and clinical standards.
Time is marching on and I must end. I recognise that I have not answered some of the specific questions that have been asked. Perhaps I may write to noble Lords about those. I end by saying that high expectations are important for our public services as they are important for our children. We should not shy away from them, and we as a government are willing to meet those challenges.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I understand that the debate has run its course. I never cease to marvel at the expertise and knowledge that are embodied in your Lordships' House, and tonight has been no exception. I thank all noble Lords for debating these difficult issues. In particular I thank the Minister for her very thoughtful and comprehensive reply. I wish her good health. In the interests of a good appetite and a hungry stomach, I conclude the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Organophosphate Sheep Dips
8.8 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists on organophosphate sheep dips.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, it is with a heavy heart that I rise once again to question Her Majesty's Government on their policy for the diagnosis and treatment of those who suffer ill health as a result of exposure to organophosphate pesticides and veterinary medicines. On 11th July 1996 as a result of repeated requests from me and from others working in this field, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, then Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, responded to a Starred Question from me. She announced that the Presidents of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists had agreed to set up a working party to review the possible long-term adverse effects of exposure to OPs. It was not until 22nd April 1997 that the terms of reference and membership of the working party were announced. Frankly, I was appalled. The title of the working party limited the review to OP sheep dips, whereas my Question and the response of the Minister had implied no such limitation. The terms of reference were extraordinarily restrictive.
The working party comprised 11 members. One of them, Sir Colin Berry, chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides responsible for licensing OP products and a member of numerous other scientific advisory committees, has publicly stated that those who attribute symptoms to exposure to toxic chemicals have a
"desire for attention, the comfort of being able to abdicate responsibility for one's failings by ascribing them to an illness, the luxury of receiving therapy, the excitement added to a humdrum life by weird beliefs about one's past, the propagation of stories
1012
produced by hysterics by the mass media, the attempts by therapists to push their clients into revealing multiple personalities, non-existent sexual abuse and even alien abduction in the mistaken belief that such revelations may effect a cure".
How does that description relate to farmers?
That statement immediately aligns Sir Colin with another two members of the working party, both psychiatrists; namely, Professor Anthony David, who works with Professor Simon Wessley at King's College Hospital, the promoter of this profound assessment of sufferers of complaints such as ME, multiple chemical sensitivity, fibromyalgia and even Gulf War illnesses, and Professor Hawton.
Dr. Bateman is chairman of the Medical and Scientific Panel of the Veterinary Products Committee. His past record appears to indicate that he has an interest in preventing the admission that OP products have harmful effects on human health. Professor Thomas is also a member of the Veterinary Products Committee. To have five working party members whose credentials are perceived to include a bias that OPs are safe does not fill one with confidence. There was no representative from any of the support groups on the working party until after they met on 22nd June 1997.
Who was responsible for setting the terms of reference? The second of the terms of reference was redundant simply because the working party included members of both the Veterinary Products Committee and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. They would be expected to report back to their respective committees as a matter of course. Additionally, as this was a clinical matter and the chief medical officer had asked the presidents of the Royal Colleges to set up the working party, should they not have reported to the Department of Health? As will be seen later, the working party made little attempt to address itself to the third of the terms of reference.
I made my concerns known to their chairman, Professor Newsom-Davis, to the Registrar of the Royal College of Physicians, Professor London, and to the Minister for Public Health. I was assured that the members would make an unbiased assessment. I now see that my initial suspicions were correct. This report is a very unpleasant sugared pill.
I am not in the least surprised that those individuals listed on page 51 of the report declined to give evidence. They have, to my knowledge, more experience than any in the UK in dealing with farmers and others exposed to OPs. They also have had many contacts with scientific advisory committees on this subject. They were right not to sully themselves with this report. My initial instinct was also to refuse to present my evidence but, as I was partially responsible for the set-up, after considerable thought, together with the assurances I had been given, I agreed to meet the working party on 22nd June 1997.
This is a short report which, on the face of it, appears to be good for the sufferer. We are told that,
"the symptoms and distress are genuine; that the initial consultation requires sympathetic handling, and that the patient's symptoms must be treated seriously".

1013
Good! That is just what is wanted. Noble Lords should read on:
"Specific symptoms, such as depression, fatigue, sleep disorders and suicidal thoughts should he managed vigorously in the usual way: for example, antidepressants as well as cognitive behavioural techniques to counteract subsequent behaviours which may develop in the aftermath of an acute illness and serve to perpetuate it".
This is straight from what is becoming known as the "Wessley School". The same recommendations were made in the now notorious Royal Colleges' report on ME and chronic fatigue syndrome. Any GP reading the summary (how many read beyond the summary?) will receive the strongly implied message that the patient has a psychosomatic illness.
It is acknowledged that existing clinical services for this group of patients are unsatisfactory. OP sufferers know this. That is why I asked the original Question!
I now go to the body of the report. Section 2 deals with the current knowledge of the toxicology and toxic syndromes associated with OPs. Section 3 covers the written and oral evidence received from patients and patients' groups. These are factual and I find little to quarrel with, though in Section 2 there is no mention of synergistic or potentiating effects of combinations of chemicals or medication. For example, phenol, which used to be used with OP dips, is now known to potentiate the effects of OPs, and there is some evidence that cimetidine, prescribed for gastric ulcers, may have a similar effect. Nor is there any mention that children, the immunucompromised or malnourished individuals may be more susceptible to OPs.
In Section 4 the working party analyses the clinical symptoms. Contrary to early replies to my Parliamentary Questions, they acknowledge the consistent pattern of complaints they discerned from the accounts of witnesses. They note that "Dipper's Flu" has not been used as a measure of mild acute poisoning. This is a group of symptoms commonly reported in affected farmers. Why do they not appear in the following section on diagnosis and guidelines? Here we get the first indication of the direction the recommendations are to take. Sections 4.5 and 4.10 link symptoms of OP exposure with affective disorders. I acknowledge that these are present, but they are not the only symptoms. Not all those affected suffer from depression.
In Section 4.9 the group blithely reject the concept of multiple chemical sensitivity on the grounds that most authorities reject its validity for lack of evidence. In 1987, Cullen, in his book Workers with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, wrote:
"The health problems of workers who react to low levels of environmental pollutants and chemicals, increasingly reported and recognised in recent years, has (sic) posed a serious dilemma for health providers from a wide array of disciplines, including generalists, internists, family practitioners, allergists, psychiatrists, social workers and frequently occupational physicians and nurses. The inability of these professionals to provide satisfactory care from the patient's perspective has led to the emergence of new and alternative clinical theories and approaches, challenging clinical view. Unfortunately, the success of these alternative approaches has not been demonstrated, fuelling the ever-widening and hostile debate
1014
in which the patient is held hostage and virtually all clinicians are rendered impotent because of widely-known intraprofessional disagreements".
Since then the debate in the USA has widened and many US government and state agencies make provision for people who suffer from MCS. The Environmental Protection Agency has initiated its own in-house study to characterise the condition and plans to conduct chemical challenge studies in the future. I look forward to the outcome.
The working party recognises many of the problems OP sufferers have encountered when they approach the medical authorities. My quotation from Cullen applies equally to Section 5.2. I am pleased that it acknowledges the support provided by the self-help groups, though this is somewhat tempered by the remarks in Section 7.7. I have first-hand knowledge of most of the groups in this field and am aware that they are generally very careful in their handling of inquiries from sufferers and their families.
I have found environmental medicine extraordinarily helpful, as have many others who have been exposed to OPs. Rosenthal summed up the reason why there is currently no objective evidence-based justification in 1994. He said:
"We are in a Catch-22 situation. It is difficult to attract research money for a controversial condition and it is difficult to resolve the controversy without the necessary research".
May I ask the Minister to think on this? On numerous occasions I have asked her predecessors for advice and funding for this research, to no avail.
Perhaps the working party should refer to the MoD on the subject of anaesthetics. In its Medical Manual of Defence against Chemical Agents, published in 1987, it states:
"On basic principles the action of anticholinesterases, including to a lesser extent pyridostigmine pre-treatment, may be expected to potentiate the action of depolarising relaxants such as succinyl choline, but to oppose the action of non-depolarising relaxants of the current type".
The working party's recommendations begin at Section 6. My filing cabinets are full of correspondence relating to the total failure of both the HSE and the National Poisons Information Service to help the victims of chemical poisoning. May I ask the Minister how Her Majesty's Government propose to rectify this situation in order to restore peoples' trust in these organisations? May I also ask her how they intend to ensure that practitioners are made aware of the range and seriousness of the symptomology associated with exposure to OPs?
Section 6.7 I find somewhat puzzling. It appears to be saying that, as the results of testing for urinary metabolites may be inconclusive, occupational groups may be forgiven for presenting late with clear histories of over-exposure to OPs. As a result of this late presentation it may have developed fixed ideas about symptoms attributable to exposure. In medicine I understand there is a teaching: "Listen to the patient, he is telling you the diagnosis". I wonder whether there is a danger of patients being mistreated as a result of the over-reliance on a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis when what we are looking at is new disease?

1015
After all, it is not so long ago that multiple sclerosis was described as "the idle man's disease". I also wonder whether the recommendation that the temptation to over-investigate should be resisted on the basis that many of these patients are not found to have abnormalities could be because the right tests are not being conducted in the first place.
The first four paragraphs on management in Section 7 are very sensible. The last sentence of paragraph 7.4 is of course the basis of informed consent. The injunction that the patient should feel believed and listened to should have been stronger. It is vital that the patient not only feels believed but that he is believed.
Why should the doctor and patient accept the limitations of scientific knowledge? Who is to say that their searches are likely to be futile. They may well, between them, come up with the answer. I simply ask whether we would have been able to cure TB, eradicate smallpox, prevent the infectious diseases of childhood or establish the link between asbestos and lung disease if the medical practitioners of the time had accepted the limitations of scientific knowledge. After all the evidence the working party heard and read, where is its natural curiosity? It repeatedly mentions that there is a lack of causality, yet it makes no recommendation for causal research. Is this because it is outside its terms of reference, or does it not wish to know?
The passage on the treatment of specific symptoms deals only with the affective disorders mentioned earlier. There is the inference that the pain, weakness and incontinence described by so many sufferers are "all in the mind" and can be cured by cognitive behavioural therapy. Could it not be that there is a chemical cause to the mental symptoms? This might explain the reported findings that some people have said that they have had unpleasant side-effects from antidepressants and other drugs. Is it not equally unreasonable that patients should be experimented upon with a range of antidepressants as that they should be referred to too many specialists? This section has clearly been written by the psychiatrists as there were no clinicians practising in other specialties on the working party. It is also almost a straight lift from the Royal College's report on ME/CFS.
In paragraph 7.7 and in the last sentence of paragraph 7.8 we come to the nub of the problem. It is the far-reaching implications for the pesticide industry, for the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health, together with the financial and occupational implications which are the working party's prime cause for concern. Antidepressants and cognitive behavioural therapy will have to satisfy the patients. The status quo must not be disturbed. In the next paragraph it has the audacity to recommend an open-minded, eclectic and pragmatic approach to clinical management, yet it has all too clearly demonstrated how closed its members' minds are.
I had a little more to say. However, perhaps I may briefly ask the Minister whether she will reject the report for the time being until we have had the report of Professor Woods from the COT committee.
8.23 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, the report rightly gives recognition to the work of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege in initiating this research. I was going to say that there could hardly have been a more authoritative document. However, having listened to the noble Countess and her reference to a sugared pill, I can only say that I hope the committee feels duly chastised by her severe, excoriating criticisms of its work.
Nevertheless the report clearly demonstrates the lack of knowledge in this field. In the evidence received from sufferers there is the confession that,
"The symptoms were often so distressful that sufferers were forced to stop working with serious consequences for their families".
It goes on:
"The symptoms and distress are genuine, and can continue for a long time; some individuals seriously consider suicide".
We are familiar with the excessive rate of suicide among farmers and the report shows that some of that may be due to OP poisoning. More needs to be known about that. The summary goes on to say that,
"existing clinical services for patients with symptoms associated with OP sheep dip exposure are unsatisfactory".
That is particularly serious especially in view of the summary at paragraph 2.24 which clearly indicates the widespread effects and the acute toxic reactions in detail. At paragraph 2.25 it admits that,
"how Ops might cause such effects is unknown".
Continued research in this field is vital. I ask the Minister what plans are in hand to push the research forward and to improve the NHS clinical services which are criticised in the report. There is also a call for greater information to be disseminated among family doctors, especially in country areas and among consultants so that they should have a firmer understanding of the problems. The report gives a list of sources of information which should be widely publicised.
Finally, those of us who have heard the noble Countess, Lady Mar, protest for so long and so often will be glad that she has been so clearly vindicated in her crusade. We sincerely hope that her efforts tonight will ensure that the crusade continues with success. We all owe her a deep debt of gratitude.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the initiation of the debate by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I, too, wish to pay tribute from these Benches for her tireless work on behalf of those suffering from exposure to organophosphates. I hope that the debate today will range much wider than the report of the joint working party.
As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, explained in some detail, the remit of the report was extremely limited. Its conclusions were limited, not to say unhelpful. The Ministry of Agriculture has known about problems with organophosphates since 1951 when the Zuckerman Committee, under Lord Zuckerman, recommended that urgent research be carried out to replace organophosphates. Toxicologists and physicians, and the

1017
World Health Organisation, were warning of the consequences of lack of protective clothing as far back as 1957–58. MAFF, needless to say, did not heed any of that at the time and continued not to do so until recently.
It amounts to a complete failure of risk assessment for those chemicals. The Ministry's approach has caused a huge amount of needless distress and suffering. Blame must also be laid at the door of manufacturers such as CIBA Geigy and others who made guidance on risks available to their workforce but not to farmers.
Then there is the question: why after eight to 10 years of compulsory dipping was the plug pulled in 1992, and it was made no longer compulsory? Was it because the Ministry received new information from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate about adverse effects? Was it because MAFF could be held responsible for their use? Did the Government receive new information about dangers when the decision was taken? Without a freedom of information Act we cannot find out. If in the early days of health problems having been identified it had been possible for legal representatives to obtain this information from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, we would now be in a very different situation.
Perhaps the Government can now answer the questions: what report did MAFF receive in 1992 which caused it to cease the compulsory use of OPs? Why did Mr. Gummer say that he was personally persuaded of the dangers of OPs back in 1992? Did he see a report? Was the Ministry frightened of judicial review or other forms of liability for personal injury? Farmers certainly never saw a report. My honourable friend Mr. Paul Tyler has campaigned for many years on their behalf as a result.
If we are to believe it, it seems that the Ministry of Defence never saw it either. As a result, our soldiers were allowed to use organophosphates extensively in the Gulf War with all the consequences that we now know about and which have been highlighted so cogently in other ways by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and my honourable friend Mr. Menzies Campbell. These soldiers did not even receive the basic advice about use which is provided to sheep farmers. The OP group, in its report in June of this year, points out the real problems which exist with exchange of information between government departments. The safety information looked at by the Veterinary Products Committee is classified as secret—another reason for a freedom of information Act as soon as possible.
In the view of these Benches, the report of the OP group was far too cautious. We take very seriously the advice given by Dr. Goran Jamal to a briefing of MPs earlier this year. He is a consultant neurophysiologist at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow. He said:
"I can say with absolutely no hesitation that these products are unsafe".
He has pointed to at least 12 studies which show chronic low-level damage caused by organophosphates. He has pointed out fundamental problems with the so called "hen test". We now know of at least six cases here and abroad where claimants have been successful in showing damage to their health from organophosphates
1018
and obtaining substantial damages. We also now know as a result of Gulf War syndrome research of the impact of stress in breaching the blood brain barrier allowing these substances to have a toxic effect. What is Government's response on all this?
The view of these Benches is that in the short term much greater control on use is needed with specified contractors only being able to use OPs. In the long term, we should be giving ultimatum to manufacturers to phase out OPs. We should say that after 1st January 2000 these products will no longer have a licence for sale. The key use is for sheep scab. There are injectable pharmaceuticals that can be used. It is vital that other treatments are developed as a matter of urgency. Furthermore, it is vital that the Department of Health assumes prime control over this matter rather than MAFF. I am heartened by the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is replying to this debate.
Perhaps the Government, coming fresh to this issue now, recognise that this is principally a public health matter rather than a problem over which MAFF should have the power of decision. We cannot allow the bald statement by the OP group that:
"if sheep dips were not available this would have a damaging effect on farmers' capacity to prevent and treat sheep ectoparasites",
to override public health considerations. In that event, the farmers of the present and future will not be best served.
In the field of further research, one of the most worrying aspects—and one on which I hope the noble Baroness can reassure us—is the omission of any official work on the effect on children. The official OP group did not address, in particular, the question of genetic damage being caused by exposure of mothers to OPs or damage caused by contact with parental clothing. There are also implications for children's headlice treatment using melathion. Are we convinced that this is safe? I hope that the noble Baroness can reassure the House that such research is now in prospect.
Finally, for the future, why cannot we institute a yellow card system similar to that used for medicines so that adverse effects are recorded? I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.32 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, deserves our thanks, not for the first time for giving us the opportunity to consider the vexed and difficult issue of OP sheep dips and specifically for directing our attention to the recent report by the Royal Colleges.
The publication of that report is a further stage in the slow progress of what seems sometimes to be an interminable saga. I say that with some feeling. The noble Countess and I go back a long way on OP sheep dips. It was towards the end of 1992 when her campaign in Parliament began in earnest. As a Minister in MAFF at the time, I have good reason to remember what a fluttering in the dovecotes it caused. We were all made to sit up and pay attention, and quite right too.

1019
The worst part of it all, if I may now speak personally, was coming to your Lordships' House on repeated occasions armed with a brief from the Ministry which said in unvarying terms that OP sheep dips were "safe if used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions". Repeating that refrain was a source of some discomfort. It was not that I was being made to say something in which I disbelieved. On the contrary, I accepted the scientific advice so far as it went. It was the knowledge that the noble Countess would almost climb up the wall of this Chamber in exasperation every time I said it and the equal certainty that distinguished Members of your Lordships' House would follow her lead. No government spokesman can withstand such repeated verbal pummelling for more than a certain length of time. Therefore, I wish the Minister well this evening.
It was as a direct result of the noble Countess's efforts that MAFF set in train the epidemiological studies which were designed to elucidate some of the basic facts of the whole issue. Specifically, they were intended to shed light on the question of whether or not there exists a recognisable syndrome associated with the use of OP dips over an extended period of time and, in doing so, to give a rather more educated answer to those individuals who have attributed a considerable measure of distress and pain to that same cause.
They were intended also to point the way to further research. The year after those studies were commissioned, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, as we have heard, as the health Minister, took forward a parallel initiative through her own department designed to assess the clinical evidence of chronic OP dip exposure as presented by sufferers and to advise on both clinical management and future studies. The result of that programme of work is the report we are now considering.
I have read this report with some care. The noble Countess has expressed her disappointment in it in no uncertain terms. She has raised a number of issues which, I confess, had passed over my head, but which should clearly be addressed by the Government with the utmost seriousness.
Despite that, I have to say to her that I do not believe that we should judge the report too harshly. As she pointed out, the members of the working party were given a fairly narrow remit and to my eyes at least, have done their best in the face of a glaring paucity of evidential data. Some of the data which does exist is contradictory. Personally, from my experience at MAFF, I cannot say that that aspect of the report is a surprise and I shall say more about that in a few moments.
What I found disappointing, indeed shocking, was the not very veiled criticism of the methodology of the epidemiological work which has so far been published. It seemed to me that paragraph 2.26 of the report is about as damning an indictment as there can be in civilised language. If we accept the criticism, as no doubt we must, it is a depressing commentary on a great deal of time and effort expended by many well-intentioned professional people over a great many years.
1020
The most valuable parts of the report are those dealing with the clinical management of sufferers and their symptoms and the section at the end which addresses the various possibilities for future research. Those are the areas to which I hope Ministers will direct their immediate attention. One of the main messages of the document is that regardless of the array of question marks surrounding the whole subject, and regardless of there being no neat series of explanations for people's symptoms and sufferings, doctors must be in no doubt that the symptoms and sufferings are real and must treat each case seriously and with sympathy.
The inadequacy of NHS clinical care for victims of OP exposure is baldly stated and must surely be to us all a matter of acute disappointment. It is clear that sending circulars to GPs, as has been done in the past, is nowhere near sufficient to ensure that OP sufferers are treated as they should be in the doctor's surgery.
But what is the report really telling us? It has some reasonably definite things to say about acute OP poisoning, but when it comes to chronic low-level OP exposure, which we need to keep in mind is the matter at issue, it seems to me to be saying, in a sometimes somewhat round-about way but in a tone that is never less than sympathetic, that we still know almost nothing about the effects of it or how to treat it. We cannot even define the symptoms associated with it. They are non-specific.
Many who complain of some of the symptoms—depression, fatigue, loss of concentration—are apparently found to have no abnormalities at all. Those studies which have identified cognitive defects or neurological dysfunction conflict with others which have failed to find any such phenomenon. There is even a suggestion that the interpretation of the results of some of the population-based studies is open to question and that in certain quarters a bias may exist against publishing negative findings.
The difficulty, as I note from the report, is that the symptoms complained of by OP users are also precipitated by exposure to other products. When presented with a set of symptoms, how is a doctor supposed to know what really caused them? All he can do is to treat the symptoms he sees. Even someone who confidently states that re-exposure to OPs has caused a recurrence of symptoms may well be attributing the way he feels to the wrong cause. What initiated the illness in the first place may be something quite different from what perpetuates it. The report suggests that anxiety, depression and general frustration are often sufficient in themselves to trigger the symptoms which the patient associates with OPs and—apparently—may also account for reported cases of chemical hypersensitivity.
I could almost picture the face of the noble Countess reading these sections of the document. It cannot be easy for her as someone who has campaigned tirelessly to obtain recognition for a group of sufferers who have not been given the attention due to them, to be told by two Royal Colleges, albeit in a polite way, that there is no proof for what she has been saying. But I suggest to her

1021
again that this is not the fault of the Royal Colleges. It is not enough to say, as Dr. Johnson did when challenged to prove that human beings have free will:
"We know our will is free, and there's an end on't".
Government policy can only be formulated on the basis of sound and firm science. The proper way forward is to point, as the report very clearly does, to the gaps in our knowledge and look for ways in which those gaps might be filled. That is easier said than done. I am not an epidemiologist. But I well remember as a Minister appreciating how complex this particular issue is for researchers to pin down. When MAFF first advertised for research proposals in 1995, it received 13 responses from eminent scientific establishments. Not one of them met the specification. The result was great embarrassment all round. But, difficult as it was, we had to get it right. I hope in the end we did so.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she will indicate the current progress of government-funded research into chronic OP exposure and what plans there are in her department or in MAFF to commission further research. It is perhaps too soon to expect a detailed response from her to the conclusions and recommendations in the report, but nevertheless can she confirm that her department will take full account of these conclusions when drawing up any further research proposals? I know that she will agree with me that while research is important, it is inevitably a long-term exercise. Meantime health and safety on farms must be paramount, and patients who complain of illness to their doctors need looking after. Can the Minister say whether Ministers have any plans to ensure that the shortcomings in clinical management revealed in the report are properly addressed and eliminated? Is this the kind of role which might be performed by the proposed National Institute for Clinical Excellence?
This has been a useful short debate. I hope the noble Countess will regard it as such (despite her strictures); and I look forward with great interest to hearing what the Minister has to say.
8.43 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the whole House is aware of the work the noble Countess has done over many years to raise awareness about the potential health risks of organophosphates. She has vigorously pursued her concerns with my predecessors and fellow Ministers from other departments over a long period of time. Her tenacity and commitment to this cause are well known. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, the health risk the noble Countess presents to Ministers who come before your Lordships' House not properly briefed on the subject is well known.
From the beginning the Government have pledged to take seriously the concerns highlighted by the noble Countess and to take whatever steps are necessary to satisfy ourselves that every aspect of the subject regarding OPs is given proper consideration. It was for that reason that we set up a high level inter-departmental committee of officials to examine the issues. Its recommendations to Ministers were published earlier this year and are already being implemented.
1022
As has been pointed out, it is a complex issue and scientific opinion is divided. While there is little dispute that acute exposure to high levels of OP compounds can cause ill health, there is no widely accepted clinical syndrome associated with prolonged exposure to low levels of OPs. It is essential that we gain a clearer picture of exactly what the health risks might be from OPs.
The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, asked about certain projects that are currently being funded by the department. Details of those are set out in the report of the inter-departmental official group, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Perhaps I can say a little about one or two of them. One is being undertaken by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh. It is costing approximately £500,000 and will take three years to complete. A report is expected in April next year. That research is examining the potential health effects of OPs in relation to farmers but the results may help us to understand the possible effects of exposure to OP-based pesticides generally, including any possible relationship to illness experienced by Gulf War veterans.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way. It was only five years ago that the same epidemiological study was started in Edinburgh. It lasted for two years and was shut down. Will the information it gained, which was sufficiently important to stop it, be put forward to the new discussion?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl raises an important point. Perhaps I can take the opportunity to look into it and write to him on that issue. He points out that there is a considerable body of current scientific literature on OPs. One of the things we are doing is subjecting that to rigorous scrutiny. A specially convened working group of the committee on toxicity is doing that important work and I know that the noble Countess is one of many people who have given evidence to that group.
The COT's advice will include recommendations for further research if appropriate, and when its report is published next year the relevant advisory committees and the official group will be asked to consider their recommendations and report to Ministers. That will be the context in which we look at the possibility of research into potential effects on children highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
In relation to the OP mechanisms of toxicity other than the depression of cholinesterase, the Government are funding research into the effects of OPs on enzymes at Newcastle University and Porton Down. There is also important research funded by the Medical Research Council. As the results are produced they are being carefully evaluated by the expert scientific committees but to date have not offered any new advice on the safety of OPs.
While that research is going on we fully recognise that there is a group of people whose suffering is occurring at the present time and is undoubtedly very real. Whether or not their illnesses can definitively be proved as being due to exposure to OPs, they deserve

1023
the best medical care and treatment that can be provided. Much has already been done to inform doctors. Chief medical officers have written to doctors alerting them to the possibility of adverse effects from exposure to pesticides and certain veterinary medicines.
An article in the October 1995 edition of the Chief Medical Officer's update—a quarterly publication sent to all doctors in England—dealt with both the chronic effects of OPs and how to report adverse reactions to them. In 1996 the book Pesticide Poisoning: Notes for the Guidance of Medical Practitioners was sent by all UK health departments to general practitioners, accident and emergency departments and others. Presidents of the Royal Colleges were encouraged to draw the book to the attention of their fellows and members through their continuing medical education programmes.
It was in recognition that more needed to be done, and at the behest in no small measure of the noble Countess, that the Department of Health, through the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, encouraged the Royal Colleges to carry out further work in relation to their awareness that this was an area that needed to be looked at, particularly in regard to ways of improving the treatment and the knowledge that was available to GPs.
That was the provenance of the report that is being discussed tonight. The Royal Colleges set up a working party to look at clinical aspects of patients with symptoms that may be attributable to long-term exposure to low levels of OP sheep dip. They did not specifically consider the question of causation as this is the subject of many other avenues of investigation being pursued by the Government, of which I have already given some details tonight.
The working party was independent of government. Their report was produced by the Royal Colleges, which also decided upon the membership. Perhaps I might give an outline tonight of the steps that we have taken in response to that report. However, given the detailed and very critical nature of the comments of the noble Countess, I will need to look at those as well, in terms of the response.
We have already opened discussions with directors of the National Poisons Information Services in suitable areas on the report's recommendations for providing specialist advice in areas where it may not currently
1024
exist, and for improving the level of support to GPs who have patients who may be suffering from the effects of OP poisoning. We will announce the outcome of these discussions as soon as action has been agreed. The report also makes recommendations for further research. We are therefore asking the COT working group and the relevant statutory advisory committees to consider the report overall and, in particular, the research recommendations, and how they may be taken forward.
One of the positives about the report is that it has emphasised the role of the GP in diagnosis and patient management, but it also recognised the practical difficulties faced by GPs and the limitations of current knowledge of the causes and mechanisms underlying the condition. The report recommends adopting a strategy of supportive treatment because, it says, the principles of rehabilitation following substantial illness are similar. That is not the same as saying that the condition is not real, nor that it has no physical cause, but only that it may be the best way of treating the symptoms, whatever the cause may be.
The report contains some useful advice for GPs on diagnosis and management and we will be discussing it with the Royal College of General Practitioners and looking to the next edition of the Chief Medical Officer's update in February of next year to encourage those in rural areas in particular to consider the advice that is contained in it, as part of the drive to improve the treatment of sufferers.
I hope that the actions I have outlined clearly indicate our determination both to gain a better understanding of the human health effect of OPs and our commitment to ensuring that the concerns expressed by the noble Countess and others that the healthcare needs of those who may be suffering from the effects of OPs are fully addressed. I should like to assure the House that we will be keeping the diagnosis and treatment of this group of patients under active review in the light of emerging findings from the research and reviews of the scientific evidence currently under way. We will take whatever steps are necessary as our understanding of the condition grows. For the present time, however, I believe that the Royal Colleges' report offers an opportunity to increase awareness among the medical profession that these patients have genuine needs, and to improve the general level of care that is offered to them.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.

  Civil and Political Rights
  Civil and Political Rights
  Senator Pinochet: Spanish Extradition Request
  Senator Pinochet: Spanish Extradition Request
  VAT: Transitional Arrangements
  VAT: Transitional Arrangements
  EU Council Recommendation 11393/97
  EU Council Recommendation 11393/97
  GPs and Secondary Health Services in Scotland
  GPs and Secondary Health Services in Scotland
  Arms Sales to Algeria
  Arms Sales to Algeria
  Medicines Control and Medical Devices Agencies
  Medicines Control and Medical Devices Agencies
  Miners' Respiratory Diseases
  Miners' Respiratory Diseases
  Victims of Nazi Persecution: Return of Assets
  Victims of Nazi Persecution: Return of Assets
  Transport Safety
  Transport Safety
  Driving Test: Revision
  Driving Test: Revision
  Regional Eurostar Services: Review
  Regional Eurostar Services: Review
  Channel Tunnel to Glasgow: Railtrack Submission
  Channel Tunnel to Glasgow: Railtrack Submission